what excuse does an employer need to sack someone...

slum dog

during a six month probationary period? does it have to be a real excuse?

blueythebear

slum dog wrote: »

during a six month probationary period? does it have to be a real excuse?

It depends on the exact content of the employment contract but in general, if the person is on probationary period the contract can stipulate that they can be let go for any reason.

It should also be noted that the person needs 12 months service to be in a position to rely on Unfair Dismissals legislation so any grievance would be based solely on the wording of the contract provided by the employer.

fatwarren

blueythebear wrote: »

It depends on the exact content of the employment contract but in general, if the person is on probationary period the contract can stipulate that they can be let go for any reason.

It should also be noted that the person needs 12 months service to be in a position to rely on Unfair Dismissals legislation so any grievance would be based solely on the wording of the contract provided by the employer.

so if a person is let go on the basis of the company not having the hours to give the employee, yet it emerges that the company had advertised 5 new positions on fas two weeks prior to the dimissal, would this amount to unfair dismissal?

Procrastastudy

To clarify something. Generally within the first 12 months of employment if you are dismissed you can not take this to tribunal. That's not to say that you were not unfairly dismissed.


*I THINK* if the company agrees to go to tribunal you still can under 12 months but I'm not sure any company out there would put their reputation for fair play above exposing themselves to a tribunal.

Why you'd tell someone there wasn't enough hours vs. sorry it's not working out your sales figure are rubbish / not fitting in with the team - I've no clue. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten on that one.

I suppose what I'm saying is in my experiance under 12 months you're pretty screwed!

blueythebear

fatwarren wrote: »

so if a person is let go on the basis of the company not having the hours to give the employee, yet it emerges that the company had advertised 5 new positions on fas two weeks prior to the dimissal, would this amount to unfair dismissal?

If the roles are identical, then there is a possibility that it could be construed as an unfair dismissal (and if the person has 12months continuous service with the employer). However, you should talk to a good employment law solicitor.

blueythebear

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

To clarify something. Generally within the first 12 months of employment if you are dismissed you can not take this to tribunal. That's not to say that you were not unfairly dismissed.


*I THINK* if the company agrees to go to tribunal you still can under 12 months but I'm not sure any company out there would put their reputation for fair play above exposing themselves to a tribunal.

Why you'd tell someone there wasn't enough hours vs. sorry it's not working out your sales figure are rubbish / not fitting in with the team - I've no clue. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten on that one.

I suppose what I'm saying is in my experiance under 12 months you're pretty screwed!

If you're under 12 months, then you're into breach of contract territory as opposed to Unfair Dismissals Acts.

However, there are exceptions to the requirement that you have 12 months continuous service and these are generally where the dismissal results from pregnancy, maternity or parental leave, or membership of a Trade Union. The Acts list the exceptions although I don't know offhand, the relevant section.

fatwarren

thanks for the replies. should i head to siptu to seek advice?

Procrastastudy

If your not already a union member you're probably going to need a solicitor. If your under 12 months employment personally I wouldn't bother but that just my (crappy) opinion.