Print

[gremlin]

This lovely couple hav'nt been sacked yet,but hs did tell them and wrote to them (union have seen the letter) reguarding the fact that in his opinion,they're english is not up to scratch.(this man doesnt care for the law nor play by it). I Know they have been advised to stay put as he cannot sack them for this,but the pressure is on them and every other manager to tow the line. Saying no to the man is not an option in his universe.

[ONLY ME]

It seems these poor people have been found guilty without at least been given a chance to put their case forward...that IS not right and seems a pretty solid case ...at least with the information that has been already posted, maybe there is more to the story?

Nobody has found them guilty or wishes for anything but justice for this couple.
Let's hope they take him all the way!!

[357maddog]

It is the employers responsibility to provide the neccessary H&S training in fact they should have received all the usual training needs during their induction.

The plain fact is you CANNOT just suddenly decide that someone is not up to standard some 18 months (or whatever the period is) later without at least some review process along the way, this would usually involve perhaps 2-3 probationary interviews/assessments at which point SS should have highlighted any shortfalls in their employees performance and given them chance to improve.

THEN, and only after that process would SS have had course to take ANY sort of disciplinary action...and the whole process would have had to have been formally undertaken with auditable records and procedures followed.

In fact if my memory serves me correctly an unfair dismissal case is automatically deemed unfair if policies and procedures have not been followed. 

It seems these poor people have been found guilty without at least been given a chance to put their case forward...that IS not right and seems a pretty solid case ...at least with the information that has been already posted, maybe there is more to the story?

[yorkie]

Surely if they were sacked on health & safety grounds, the same grounds would have applied when they were appointed They are unlikely to have less knowledge of English now compared to when they started.

If so, then the brewery must have breached health & safety rules by not checking when setting them on in the first place.

Corporate negligence?

[357maddog]

All that said, there is due process during recruitment/probation to evaluate their capabilities, that would have been SS opportunity to let them go, after following the process to allow them to improve of course.

I personally can't see how they can fail to win, the question is which case they will pursue and how much they will get.

I hope they screw him over big style.

[ONLY ME]

I have heard through my contacts they had at least 18 months which is good enough to take him for unfair dismissal and also try for racial discrimination, but he will contest on the grounds of fit for purpose. IE. if they cannot read the back of a bottle of glass washer rinse aid and understand it properlly they are in violation on the grounds of health and saftey. (coshh)
Lets hope they are fluent in both written and spoken English. It could bring him some very bad press.

[OnTheDrink]

Word on the street has it that Hump has, in his capacity as Area Manager, visited one of the London Pubs, which happens to be run by a Chinese couple. Nothing said at the time but later sent a letter explaining that their command of the Queens' English wasn't that good and he'd henceforth be dispensing with their services. It would seem that their English was good enough to run the pub for several years, and also good enough to read Hump's letter, which, if this tale is true, will be winging its way to m'learned friends, where, in the case of racial discrimination, tribunal settlements tend to be astronomic. Anyone able to shed any light on this one?