Unfair treatment? - Page 2

waterhotter · #11 08-26-2010, 07:22 PM

Yup. Skills, aptitude and qualifications as well are performance are just two sets of criteria used. some companies may put a premium on adaptability, or how an employee responds to change. Some companies just go for attendance and discipline...

Devon · #12 08-26-2010, 08:59 PM

It is wise for an organisation to have different criteria for selection, not just one. This is to ensure that you are not seen as discriminating against a particular set of employees.

blonde1 · #13 09-23-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.C.D.

Here is a complete list of automatically unfair reasons for dismissal from BusinessLink:

The tribunal will hold the dismissal of an employee to be unfair if they are dismissed or selected for redundancy:

* because of their trade union membership, trade union non-membership, trade union activities or proposed activities, or use or proposed use of trade union services
* because they failed to accept an unlawful inducement from an employer to give up their trade union rights or to disapply a collective agreement
* because they failed to accept an offer made by an employer to induce them to become a trade union member
* because they refused to make a payment in lieu of union membership, or objected to their employer deducting a sum from their wages or salary to make such a payment
* for exercising or seeking to exercise rights relating to trade union recognition procedures
* for exercising or seeking to exercise their right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing, or to accompany a fellow worker at such a meeting
* for reasons relating to jury service
* on grounds relating to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity
* for taking, or seeking to take, maternity leave
* for taking, or seeking to take, paternity leave
* for taking, or seeking to take, adoption leave
* for taking, or seeking to take, parental leave
* for taking, or seeking to take, time off for dependants
* for taking or proposing to take certain specified types of action on health and safety grounds
* because, subject to certain conditions, the employee was a shop worker or a betting worker and refused to work on Sundays or gave, or proposing to give, an 'opting-out' notice to their employer
* for reasons relating to the Working Time Regulations 1998
* for performing, or proposing to perform, any duties relevant to their role as an employee occupational pension scheme trustee
* for performing, or proposing to perform, any duties relevant to their role as an employee representative or as a candidate to be such representative or as a participant in the election of such a representative
* for making a protected disclosure
* for having sought, in good faith, to assert a statutory employment protection right
* for reasons relating to the national minimum wage
* for requesting flexible working arrangements
* for taking lawfully organised official industrial action lasting 12 weeks or less (or more than 12 weeks in certain circumstances) for reasons relating to the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999
* on grounds related to the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
* on grounds relating to the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
* for reasons relating to the European Public Limited-Liability Company Regulations 2004
* for reasons relating to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004
* for reasons relating to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006
* for exercising or seeking to exercise the right to be accompanied at a meeting to consider a request not to retire, or for exercising or seeking to exercise the right to accompany a fellow employee at such a meeting
* for reasons relating to the European Cooperative Society (Involvement of Employees) Regulations 2006
* for reasons relating to the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007

A dismissal will also be unfair where the employee was dismissed:

* On grounds of retirement without the employer having first complied with their duty to consider a request by the employee not to retire.
* On the transfer of an undertaking or part of an undertaking, and the transfer itself, or a reason connected with it, is the main reason for the dismissal. This is unless it can be established that the dismissal was for an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.

Wow that is quite a long list to take note of. But I guess it's best to be able to protect an employee.

blonde1 · #14 09-23-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devon

It is wise for an organisation to have different criteria for selection, not just one. This is to ensure that you are not seen as discriminating against a particular set of employees.

I know what you mean by this. If you only have one criteria, that will be seen as if you are discriminating against all those who fall under that criteria. For example: if your criteria is seniority, you'd be guilty of age discrimination. If your criteria relates to absences, then you'd be guilty of disability discrimination. If you only have one criteria, it's easy to misconstrue this as discrimination.

CarneyPledge · #15 02-15-2011, 07:47 AM

I've had a similar situation. My mother bought me an older car. When I was in college. I had a co-op job clear across the country. I asked my mother if I could swap my car for hers while I was on my trip for 3 months. She said no.........she didn't care that I'd be traveling thousands of miles away without reliable transportation.

afaqanjum28 · #16 03-14-2011, 09:52 PM

Organisations could select people for redundancy within the so-called selection pool. And they could come up with different selection criteria to come out with their selections. For example, skills and competence would be one. If he has been there for 5 years but had a mediocre performance all through out, it would certainly be right for the company to keep the less senior person who could do a better job,

afaqanjum28 · #17 03-17-2011, 01:00 PM

He has been with his job for more than 5 years, and was chosen for redundancy over somebody with less experience. He feels slighted that he has given an unfair treatment, and thinks that the other guy was chosen to stay on because of the lower salary.

afaqanjum28 · #18 03-18-2011, 09:32 PM

He has been with his job for more than 5 years, and was chosen for redundancy over somebody with less experience.And they could come up with different selection criteria to come out with their selections. For example, skills and competence would be one.race, religion, disability, health and safety activities. They could not also fire you just because you are member of your company's trade but I agree that it would be very difficult to claim unfair treatment from what we know so far. because of their trade union membership, trade union non-membership, trade union activities or proposed activities, or use or proposed use of trade union services

mian afi143 · #19 03-26-2011, 02:33 AM

with different selection criteria to come out with their selections. For example, skills and competence would be one. If he has been there for 5 years but had a mediocre performance all through out, it would certainly be right for the company to keep the less senior person

m.afaqanjum228 · #20 04-19-2011, 08:54 PM

What is more, there SHOULD BE no rule that the first one hired gets to keep the job. This could be seen as age discrimination, They could not also fire you just because you are member of your company's trade union or because you only work part-time with them.