Probationary period extension, sickness and lateness?

[Duncan2]

I would say a) that's too vague to be meaningful and b) potentially discriminatory.

Speculating wildly supposing Ann were to be brutally frank with her new employer about the extent of her health problems (forgive me anyone reading this) and they were then to finish her on the spot what succour can she reasonably expect to get in the event that she were to take it to a tribunal.Just wondering how generous any remedy would likely be .Would she likely be in line for something substantial by way of a protective award or would the hope be that the employer fearing bad publicity offers to settle for big bucks? In any other case you might think the game would not be worth the candle?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Yes do it by direct debit - no need to broadcast it to the company by taking deduction via payroll

I’ve never done it via payroll and didn’t realise it was a thing. Seems a preposterous idea that you’d rely on the very place you could be in dispute with to make sure your subs are paid.

 

[Duncan2]

I’ve never done it via payroll and didn’t realise it was a thing. Seems a preposterous idea that you’d rely on the very place you could be in dispute with to make sure your subs are paid.

Doubtless a relic that is preserved only in public sector employment

 

[equationgirl]

Speculating wildly supposing Ann were to be brutally frank with her new employer about the extent of her health problems (forgive me anyone reading this) and they were then to finish her on the spot what succour can she reasonably expect to get in the event that she were to take it to a tribunal.Just wondering how generous any remedy would likely be .Would she likely be in line for something substantial by way of a protective award or would the hope be that the employer fearing bad publicity offers to settle for big bucks? In any other case you might think the game would not be worth the candle?

It would depend what proof she had that the dismissal was for a protected characteristics, rather than 'performance issues' or 'reliabiity'. Tribunal route for the first, even without two years service, whereas unlikely in the second case.

Wouldn't like to speculate but it took my case two years to be resolved.

 

[equationgirl]

Doubtless a relic that is preserved only in public sector employment

Was a thing in any heavily unionised industry such as engineering, and some employers still do it.

 

[Duncan2]

It would depend what proof she had that the dismissal was for a protected characteristics, rather than 'performance issues' or 'reliabiity'. Tribunal route for the first, even without two years service, whereas unlikely in the second case.

Wouldn't like to speculate but it took my case two years to be resolved.

That's more or less what I was thinking EG unless the burden of proof is reversed in such cases it would be bloody difficult to prove and also stressfull

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Doubtless a relic that is preserved only in public sector employment

I’m in the public sector, sort of. Maybe it’s from days of more limited cash transfer options. No need for it today though.

 

[Elpenor]

Was a thing in any heavily unionised industry such as engineering, and some employers still do it.

This - but it’s irrelevant to the thread really

 

[Epona]

It would depend what proof she had that the dismissal was for a protected characteristics, rather than 'performance issues' or 'reliabiity'. Tribunal route for the first, even without two years service, whereas unlikely in the second case.

Wouldn't like to speculate but it took my case two years to be resolved.

Aye, it kind of pre-supposes that employers are always strictly honest about their reasons for sacking someone, when of course they aren't - same about hiring people in the first place, they can ditch off disabled applicants for example by using some other excuse and it's almost impossible to prove.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I wouldn’t be too stressed tbh. Given they’ve extended your probation despite attendance issues and haven’t started any disciplinary proceedings over it.
But keep notes and join a union.

 

[redsquirrel]

and i also presume that employers don't have to co-operate with this sort of thing unless there is a recognition agreement in place, anyway?

They are also entitled to take an admin fee - I know my employer takes the maximum fee possible - so paying dues by payroll also denies the union and members money.