B1549 – Employment Tribunal Bill 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Joleee
Badges: 18
#41
Report 4 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Aph)
citation please

Because individual performance isn't as important as team performance.
the ability to do your job is not independent of team performance; it might actually be a part of the description.

my guess is you are not in favour if 'unfair' dismissal either, but we are arguing about terminology.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by Joleee)
the ability to do your job is not independent of team performance; it might actually be a part of the description.

my guess is you are not in favour if 'unfair' dismissal either, but we are arguing about terminology.
In other words you’re guessing? My understanding is that it is unfair dismissal but not a protected one that applies immediately.

What’s that guess based on? The fact I disagree with you? The list I cited on the first page of this thread were all perfectly reasonable things that a person should not be dismissed for and I support that. I just happen to believe a persons worth isn’t measurable, something I’m surprised a labourite is arguing against.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#43
Report 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Aph)
In other words you’re guessing? My understanding is that it is unfair dismissal but not a protected one that applies immediately.

What’s that guess based on? The fact I disagree with you? The list I cited on the first page of this thread were all perfectly reasonable things that a person should not be dismissed for and I support that. I just happen to believe a persons worth isn’t measurable, something I’m surprised a labourite is arguing against.
because i'm assuming you aren't completely unreasonable. if you looked at the law, there is no reason to dismiss an employee outside the rules i mentioned.

except in your view personality is a reason to dismiss someone, even if they can do their job. lol also lol.

also i don't understand your last sentence.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Joleee)
because i'm assuming you aren't completely unreasonable. if you looked at the law, there is no reason to dismiss an employee outside the rules i mentioned.

except in your view personality is a reason to dismiss someone, even if they can do their job. lol also lol.

also i don't understand your last sentence.
Now, things would go much faster is you didn’t make up what you think is that law and actually stated what the law is...

under 98 you’ll find this
1) (b)that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

note the ‘some other substantial reason’ I.e. this act states things that are definitely wrong, states things which are definitely fair and leaves the rest for the courts to arbitrate...

if an employee can do their job but in the process drags down everyone else around them it absolutely is a reason to sack them.

I’m saying that the group is what matters not the individual...
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#45
Report 4 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Aph)
Now, things would go much faster is you didn’t make up what you think is that law and actually stated what the law is...

under 98 you’ll find this
1) (b)that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

note the ‘some other substantial reason’ I.e. this act states things that are definitely wrong, states things which are definitely fair and leaves the rest for the courts to arbitrate...

if an employee can do their job but in the process drags down everyone else around them it absolutely is a reason to sack them.

I’m saying that the group is what matters not the individual...
if you read my original argument, i said in my last bullet point a reason for fair dismissal was --

(Original post by Joleee)
  • ‘some other substantial reason’ - this is the legal catchall. means an employer's right to prove it was fair beyond the scope of the other reasons.

i've already defended that point. i'm tired and don't even know what we're arguing about anymore.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Joleee)
if you read my original argument, i said in my last bullet point a reason for fair dismissal was --

[/list]
i've already defended that point. i'm tired and don't even know what we're arguing about anymore.
I’ve been waiting for you to give an actual reason why this change needs to happen and you have provided me with nothing at all substantive, just a load of waffle.

If you think that personality doesn’t fall under that point, or at least that a case couldn’t be fought over it, you’d be wrong.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Aph)
I’ve been waiting for you to give an actual reason why this change needs to happen and you have provided me with nothing at all substantive, just a load of waffle.

If you think that personality doesn’t fall under that point, or at least that a case couldn’t be fought over it, you’d be wrong.
because there is no reason why a 2 year employee should be treated differently than a 12 month employee, which is what i said in my original statement.

also please provide me case reference that 'personality' is a reason for dismissal. i will genuinely buy you a Ferrari.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Joleee)
because there is no reason why a 2 year employee should be treated differently than a 12 month employee, which is what i said in my original statement.

also please provide me case reference that 'personality' is a reason for dismissal. i will genuinely buy you a Ferrari.
That’s not an argument that’s a proposition,

Perkin v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust looks to be a good one. I take my Ferraris in red
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#49
Report 4 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Aph)
That’s not an argument that’s a proposition,

Perkin v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust looks to be a good one. I take my Ferraris in red
is it related to job performance?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by Joleee)
is it related to job performance?
No. The case notes even state the claimant had exemplary performance.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#51
Report 4 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Aph)
No. The case notes even state the claimant had exemplary performance.
what was the reason for dismissal?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Joleee)
what was the reason for dismissal?
A personality clash.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#53
Report 4 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Aph)
A personality clash.
LOL. also LMFAO i don't believe you. i'm tired and will read it in the morning.
Last edited by Joleee; 4 weeks ago
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Joleee)
LOL. also LMFAO i don't believe you. i'm tired and will read it in the morning.
What was the point of asking if you weren’t going to belive the truth anyway...
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 weeks ago
#55
Mr Speaker, based on the argument provided by the Rt. Hon. Aph MP i intend to vote against this bill.

Although i was initially minded to abstain it is clear that this is a somewhat needless change and that the government is perusing this course of action because it sounds nice rather than because they believe there is any justifiable need.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, based on the argument provided by the Rt. Hon. Aph MP i intend to vote against this bill.

Although i was initially minded to abstain it is clear that this is a somewhat needless change and that the government is perusing this course of action because it sounds nice rather than because they believe there is any justifiable need.
Hear hear! I agree with the right honorable gentlemen. Since the government has failed to justify the need for this change, and for this specific change, I too shall be voting against.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#57
This item has entered cessation.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 weeks ago
#58
Andrew97 might want to remember to close this thread.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#59
Division, clear the lobbies!!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All