Well well well

[EFCNIK]

No it doesn't at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. The decision to sack the dinner lady was correct until proven otherwise.

Any fraud is wrong and against the laws of the land. I don't have all the facts of the dad's case (-do you?) so cannot speak as to whether he was dealt with fairly or not - I don't even know if he was charged or convicted or anything.

So guilty until proven innocent.

OK MATE x

 

[Tree13]

I guess I'm trying to say that if the first sacking was in any way dodgy then surely it would be Christmas time for UKIP and the Daily Mail etc. The fact that (I think) it hasn't been taken to a tribunal leads me to think there's more to it and it was actually the right decision.

If it was a genuine one-off mistake and she properly made amends/apologised then I agree that does stink and I cannot see how any employer could sack her on that basis. The employment laws in this country are stacked in favour of the employee and with all the attention and supporters she's picked up she'd get decent legal advice for free. It'd be a PR win to do well at an employment tribunal and there'd be a bit of money in it as well.

They most certainly are not. SOME employees are relatively well protected, but many are not. A huge chunk of employment law is only accessible to employees after they have been employed for a set period of time and there are other barriers in place regarding employees who work part-time hours. There is also no legal aid whatsoever for employment law so I don't know where you get the idea that she would get a solicitor and bazza free of charge.

As for the payout IF she won, it would be based in part on her length of service and salary at time of dismissal. There is a statutory formula for calculating damages, but I can't recall which Act it is contained in because I haven't done employment law since my training contract.

I would bet my house that she is unable to claim due to the fact she worked too few hours per year to qualify for the relevant statutory protections.

 

[peteblue]

They most certainly are not. SOME employees are relatively well protected, but many are not. A huge chunk of employment law is only accessible to employees after they have been employed for a set period of time and there are other barriers in place regarding employees who work part-time hours. There is also no legal aid whatsoever for employment law so I don't know where you get the idea that she would get a solicitor and bazza free of charge.

As for the payout IF she won, it would be based in part on her length of service and salary at time of dismissal. There is a statutory formula for calculating damages, but I can't recall which Act it is contained in because I haven't done employment law since my training contract.

I would bet my house that she is unable to claim due to the fact she worked too few hours per year to qualify for the relevant statutory protections.

This is an excellent point. You can get legal insurance that covers for this and boundary disputes on your house insurance, it costs about £20 a year in the UK and is money very well spent.......

 

[Steve0]

What's this got to do with the price of bread?

The dinner lady was sacked for good reason in my view..

Your view is bonkers.

 

[Dell Boy]

Sorry I disagree with the three of you Nik, Pete, Tree

First of all if her job was only a few hours a week for a short period of time (i.e. below the threshold to qualify for any meaningful employment rights) then it's a storm in a tee-cup. No big deal. There has to be a cut-off somewhere. It's not a meaningful job to lose. That might sound harsh but there has to be a cut-off somewhere. If I run a chip van and a 16 year old turns up for his shift and I don't like his attitude I want to be able to get rid of him on the spot. I don't want the hassle of employment regulation - that sort of red tape really would kill the country.

That's all speculation though isn't it? That she didn't qualify for the employment laws? Or is that stated/proven?

If she had a job with some protection and she any rights at all then the Daily Mail, UKIP brigade (or those supporters) would be all over it and they would fund a challenge on her behalf.

 

[Dell Boy]

Your view is bonkers.

in what way?

 

[Bungle]

She looks like a miserable cow anyway so who really cares. If she was fit I might consider an e-petition.

 

[Steve0]

in what way?

Because she's basically been sacked for not being telepathic lol. Not sure if this would apply to you, but i can just imagine if the dinner lady denied a 'brown girl' pork and it turned out that she wasn't muslim, that there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain people in our society.

 

[Dell Boy]

Just to add here I am a keen Labour supporter. I believe in strong employment protection for the country's workforce but I do accept in practical terms there has to be a bar below which it is termed "low quality/casual labour". Every single job cannot be subject to the same employment laws.

 

[Dell Boy]

Because she's basically been sacked for not being telepathic lol. Not sure if this would apply to you, but i can just imagine if the dinner lady denied a '***** girl' pork and it turned out that she wasn't muslim, that there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain people in our society.

That's one side of the story. As I've said above if that was true in isolation then she'd have a case for a tribunal. She hasn't taken anything anywhere despite all the PR so that leads me to think there's more to it that your one sentence. Lol.

And I don't think it's smart using that description so suggest you edit your own post.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Can't wait for the season to start. NIK can go back to supporting our Muslims at L4.

 

[Brennan]

Dell your whole argument revolved around the fact that if she had been unfairly dismissed she could appeal and was well protected, now that the point has been made that those protections may not have applied you're saying it doesn't matter ?

Maybe it wouldn't matter to you, but you have no idea the financial restraints of the lady or what those part time hours as a dinner lady contributed to her lifestyle. And it's not just about that, nobody should be unfairly dismissed from a job, doesn't matter if they work 40 hours per week or 10.

 

[Dell Boy]

Your whole argument revolved around the fact that if she had been unfairly dismissed she could appeal and was well protected, now that the point has been made that she may not have been applicable to said protections you're saying it doesn't matter ?

Maybe it wouldn't matter to you, but you have no idea the financial restraints of the lady or what those part time hours as a dinner lady contributed to her lifestyle.

No I still believe/presume she had some employment rights that could easily be challenged in a tribunal. I do believe though yes there has to be a cut-off or the country would ground to a halt.

 

[peteblue]

Sorry I disagree with the three of you Nik, Pete, Tree

First of all if her job was only a few hours a week for a short period of time (i.e. below the threshold to qualify for any meaningful employment rights) then it's a storm in a tee-cup. No big deal. There has to be a cut-off somewhere. It's not a meaningful job to lose. That might sound harsh but there has to be a cut-off somewhere. If I run a chip van and a 16 year old turns up for his shift and I don't like his attitude I want to be able to get rid of him on the spot. I don't want the hassle of employment regulation - that sort of red tape really would kill the country.

That's all speculation though isn't it? That she didn't qualify for the employment laws? Or is that stated/proven?

If she had a job with some protection and she any rights at all then the Daily Mail, UKIP brigade (or those supporters) would be all over it and they would fund a challenge on her behalf.

A bit harsh don't you think....that's a human being and her job you're talking about.....not everyone can be a high flying Director like the kids dad....

 

[EFCNIK]

Who gives a **** about Islamic dietry requests. Koff. England. End of. If you don't want to eat something then don't eat it. We shouldn't all be expected to automatically accomodate.