Part-time employee dismissed for not being available for one shift

S

sunset415

Registered User
Messages
3
16 year old employed on a 20 hour week contract with 6 mths probationary 2 weeks ago. Paid monthly, rota given out weekly. First two weeks down for Weds, Fri afternoon-evenings and Saturdays - 20hrs total. He’s a planned trip away next weekend and told manager last Saturday he wasn’t available to work the coming weekend. Manager rang yesterday, told him he was being let go, immediately. Requested to come in and was required to sign a document stating he was being let go due to misconduct.

Is the employer (retailers) allowed to categorise his shift refusal as gross misconduct? He had offered to work any other day to cover his hours. That’s the term that is used in his contract to be able to fire him immediately with no notice.

According to his supervising manager he was very pleased with his work ethic, on time etc etc and had been giving him a lot of positive feedback, also offered to write a “glowing” reference for him. This is his first paid job. It seems to be a very harsh punishment and that he would have been better off lying and just ringing in sick the morning of the Saturday shift.
Two things, 1. Very obvious they had overhired for the new store 2. He’d been asked after 1st week if he was available to work more than 20hrs a week and he’d said no as he’s still in school.

Was he fired unfairly?
 
He should have told them about his planned trip before taking the job. I wouldn't sign anything just wouldn't go back. I'd look for another job and never mention this one. Messing from both sides maybe?
 
It doesn't sound fair if they demanded that a 16 year old sign a document admitting misconduct. That amounts to abuse of power.

He should accept his termination and not mention it.

But he or you should write to HR about it.

Brendan
 
Unfair dismissals law generally only applies to employees who have been employed one year or more by the employer. The employee accordingly, with two weeks down, has not been “unfairly dismissed” in the legal sense.

The employee would nonetheless have rights under their contract and it depends on what the definition of “misconduct” is in the contract to establish whether they had engaged in misconduct. I wouldn’t have thought this was misconduct, even though it may have left the employer short.

Insisting on the employee signing something to the effect that they engaged in misconduct when they were being let go anyways smacks of overkill and undoubtedly was a posterior-covering exercise by the employer. Moreso when the employee is only 16 smacks of an abuse of power. By dismissing the employee owing to misconduct absolves the employer from their contractual obligation to pay the employee their notice period pay in lieu of notice. I suspect this is what the employer was at when insisting the employee sign the acknowledgement of misconduct.

All that said, in general, the probationary period is recognised in law as being a time period during which the employer can establish whether the employee is a good fit. And it allows to employer let the employee go if they’re not. The employer wasn’t impressed with the non disclosure of the holiday so decided to fire the employee.

It wasn’t nice, somewhat unfair in the informal sense. But the employee should chalk it down to experience and move on.
 
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess said:
But he or you should write to HR about it.
Click to expand...
And say what?

My take is that the company realised subsequently that they erred and signing a document that admits gross misconduct is a blunt backside covering exercise that would have no status if challenged.

I certainly wouldn’t like it on record that my son was dismissed for misconduct if he hadn’t done anything to warrant any such claim. References from employers now typically refer to the facts of the employment relationship rather than on any subjective assessment.

Given that your son has now signed an admission of misconduct, the company could legitimately repeat this to any future employer seeking a reference.

Although your son is not covered by UD legislation, he would remain free to take a case under the Industrial Relations Act if he wished, on the basis that proper procedure wasn’t followed.
 
Last edited:
Salvadore said:
And say what?
Click to expand...
Request that the signed acknowledgement be removed from the son’s record immediately as it was grossly unfair that they insisted on a 16 year old signing a document (without the benefit of independent legal advice) admitting misconduct.

And request that the company pay the son their notice period contractual entitlements.
 
Salvadore said:
And say what?
Click to expand...

Just in case HR is not aware of this manager's behaviour.

"Dear HR

I thought you should know about the behaviour of your manager in your Dublin shop.

Outline the facts.

It is totally inappropriate that a manager demand that a 16 year old sign a letter admitting misbehaviour - he was intimidated by this as you would expect a 16 year old to be. So please return that letter to me and remove it from his file.

X is not going to take this matter any further, but it is a poor reflection on the way a public-facing company deals with its employees and it would be nice if you issued an apology.

Yours "
 
I'd say the instruction probably came from HR - theyare the ones who wantto cover themself from an unfair dismissal claim, not the manager!
 
Salvadore said:
Given that your son has now signed an admission of misconduct, the company could legitimately repeat this to any future employer seeking a reference.
Click to expand...
In reality, this is never going to arise. It would be a foolish person who ever included a two weeks employment that didn't end well on a submission to prospective employers. It would then take a foolish former employer to tell a third party that someone had been let for for misconduct. There's a reason more and more employers will only confirm dates of employment and final role in response to reference requests.

Salvadore said:
My take is that the company realised subsequently that they erred and signing a document that admits gross misconduct is a blunt backside covering exercise that would have no status if challenged.
Click to expand...
I agree the declaration stinks of cover up, but the greatest error the employer made was not understanding they did not need to provide any reason at all and general guidance is that you shouldn't go into details if letting someone go during probation.
 
messyleo said:
I'd say the instruction probably came from HR - theyare the ones who wantto cover themself from an unfair dismissal claim, not the manager!
Click to expand...
That would be my take also.

The chances of a voluntary apology and an admission of wrongdoing are very slim.
 
If HR truely knew what they were doing they'd understand that there was 0 chance or entitlement for a claim for unfair dismissal.

I'd move on and let it go if I were the OP
 
thedaddyman said:
If HR truely knew what they were doing they'd understand that there was 0 chance or entitlement for a claim for unfair dismissal.

I'd move on and let it go if I were the OP
Click to expand...
I don’t think they know what they’re doing at all. It’s a crude attempt at cover up.

The OP’s son has no claim for UD but could still make a complaint under the IR Act. There may also be potential to submit a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts on the basis of age discrimination. Would they treat an older worker with the same contempt?

If it was me or my son, I wouldn’t let it go. Word gets around.
 
The 16 yo teenager is employed for about a fortnight. He was sacked because of availability/non-availability over a weekend. Put it down to experience and move on. Likely, this will inspire the teenager to seek much better employment later in life. There's no big deal involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpd
thedaddyman said:
If HR truely knew what they were doing they'd understand that there was 0 chance or entitlement for a claim for unfair dismissal.

I'd move on and let it go if I were the OP
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true, while you can fire somebody within a year for performance or not a good fit etc, if there is an allegation of gross misconduct you will need to follow fair policy and procedures and investigate it appropriately with separation of decision making, otherwise you are leaving yourself open to being challenged on unfair procedures
 
Leper said:
Likely, this will inspire the teenager to seek much better employment later in life.
Click to expand...
True, might even inspire them to work harder in school to achieve more in-demand skills where they are less likely to be exploited.
 
On the employer's side, it's Christmas, and if they do any form of Christmas trade they probably have (should have) a restriction on holidays/time off during December.
I've had it in contracts for 25 years with the exception being education reasons and it's very standard in any retailer employment contract I've seen.

But, to call it "misconduct" is farfetched especially when all they need to say is "look lad, you're not suitable for the job".

I'd also wonder if the 16 year old is telling the parent the full story.
 
I find it amazing how badly so many retail chains treat their employees. There is a particular sports clothing retailer which is notorious for making 16 year olds work long hours, often up to 11pm and occasionally overnight. They change shifts with no notice and have a very high staff turnover.
 
A sixteen year old is a minor in law. Not having representation when signing a document like this would worry me. It is a dreadful way to behave to a young lad. Perhaps a visit from a ‘Irish Mammy’ to the Manager pointing out the error of his ways preferably on the shop floor might be helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top