Liverpool passport staff sacked after contract error

blackthorn · 23-03-2011, 20:02

Four passport workers in Liverpool were sacked after it emerged they had been given permanent contracts by mistake.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-12839778

I`m not sure I fully understand all of this. If I`m reading this right then they have only been sacked because they had the wrong contract and not for anything they had done.
So are the jobs actually still there and are they now going to employ more temps. It just doesnt seem to make sense to me.

**Paul** · 23-03-2011, 20:07

Im surprised its legal. Couldnt they calim unfair dismissal or something ?

danielf · 23-03-2011, 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

Im surprised its legal. Couldnt they calim unfair dismissal or something ?

That's what I thought. If this is legal, then what's stopping other employers from retro-actively changing contract terms if they want to get rid of someone, by simply claiming that an error was made?

23-03-2011, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

Im surprised its legal. Couldnt they calim unfair dismissal or something ?

i think they could ,of corse a lot depends on if they were sacked or made redundant ,entirely different things and one which people can get confused with .
An employer cannot just sack someone without warnings or a serious breach in company rules

Chrysalis · 23-03-2011, 20:54

It must be illegal surely?

We dont have the contracts here but the only cop out I would think is there may have been a XX day cancellation clause eg. they could cancel the contract within first 30 days or something. Otherwise its classed as a sacking and for someone who has worked there 2 years they should be able to take legal action now for wrongful dismissal.

Quote:

Wrongful Dismissal is where an employee has been dismissed without notice or an employee has not been given the right amount of notice, or the employment is terminated contrary to the contract. Wrongful Dismissal is based upon the actual contract between the employer and the employee and so breaches of that contract by the employer could give the employee the right to sue for Wrongful Dismissal.

There is no requirement to have been employed for at least one year in order to bring a claim.

Unfair dismissal is as follows.

Quote:

Unfair Dismissal is when the following happens:

1. An employee is dismissed and they qualify for the right to bring an Unfair Dismissal claim. See here

2. The employer did not have a fair reason to dismiss the employee.

3. Or, the employer did have a fair reason, but the matter was dealt with unfairly.

To me it looks like they can take the employer on for unfair dismissal if the new contract had no get out clause, if it did have a get out clause but the fact they didnt revert back to a temp should still allow for wrongful dismissal claims.

Since they mostly young people I expect some over confidence from the employer that none were going to take action. Now its hit the news, at the very least I expect people will be offering them legal help now.

This has highlighted how messed up our country is with jobs tho, that so many jobs are not 'proper' jobs where you are employed for decades by the same company but more temp jobs that expire and can only last a few weeks.

georgepomone · 23-03-2011, 23:35

I was just thinking about this. Are Passport staff employed by the "Crown"? If so it could be that the rules are different to the rest of us. Like the "Armed Forces". Maybe I'm wrong.

BenMcr · 23-03-2011, 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgepomone

I was just thinking about this. Are Passport staff employed by the "Crown"? If so it could be that the rules are different to the rest of us. Like the "Armed Forces". Maybe I'm wrong.

From the news article

Quote:

But despite undergoing interviews, under civil service rules they should have been offered temporary and not permanent employment.

Chrysalis · 23-03-2011, 23:46

so there is no permanent civil servants in the country? its a temp only policy, seems very bizarre and then the question is of course if that overules employment legislation.

**Maggy** · 24-03-2011, 11:04

From the BBC article.

Quote:

All of those affected were recruited up to two years ago through a scheme which opened up jobs to friends and family of existing staff.

But despite undergoing interviews, under civil service rules they should have been offered temporary and not permanent employment.

Possibly a civil service rule to prevent nepotism?

Chrysalis · 24-03-2011, 11:29

I havent looked into this more myself yet, and it be interesting to see a legal point here.

But if I were to employ someone by accident its tough luck to me, I have to deal with that decision as at that point i have entered a contract with the worker. Generally the law should supercede any company policy.

So the ? here for me is if the civil service is excempt from normal employment laws.

**Chris** · 24-03-2011, 11:36

If you go through the civil service recruitment process and are employed as a civil servant, then you can have a permanent contract to work as one. But if any civil service department requires additional support it is only allowed to recruit non-civil servants on a temporary basis. IIRC the upper limit is five years. I have done contract work for the civil service and have seen people move on after that period of time even though their projects were ongoing, simply because they were not allowed to have more than five years' continuous employment as a temp in the civil service.

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 ----------

Edit ... Looks like the limit is 2 years in this case. I guess it may change depending on whether the posts are at a managerial level or not.

Chrysalis · 24-03-2011, 11:36

Chris yeah that is fine, however these people who moved on were not entered into new contracts first.

One situation is simply moving on a temp, no problem.
The other is giving someone permanent employment and then just cancelling it.

The latter breaks the law. (I think).

danielf · 24-03-2011, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Edit ... Looks like the limit is 2 years in this case. I guess it may change depending on whether the posts are at a managerial level or not.

It may just be a condition of this particular scheme

Quote:

All of those affected were recruited up to two years ago through a scheme which opened up jobs to friends and family of existing staff.

Which I presume is meant to provide jobs for deprived communities, but which strikes me as an odd scheme anyway.

Anyway, I just can't see how it can be legal for an employer to simply rip up a contract because it was issued in error. If this is legal something needs doing in my opinion.

**Chris** · 24-03-2011, 13:18

It might be legal because of regulations relating to the operation of the Civil Service - as I said, it is well known amongst those of us who do freelancing for the Government that there is an upper limit.

However, the way in which this case was handled was awful.

danielf · 24-03-2011, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

It might be legal because of regulations relating to the operation of the Civil Service - as I said, it is well known amongst those of us who do freelancing for the Government that there is an upper limit.

However, the way in which this case was handled was awful.

I wasn't complaining about the legality of an upper limit to the length of temporary contracts. I was questioning the legality of ripping up a contract that was drawn up in error. It makes a mockery of the contract which is supposed to be a legally binding document. If they were issued a permanent contract, and the employer wants to get rid of them, they should file for redundancy and the associated payouts rather than saying that the contract isn't valid as appears to be the case here. What value is there to a contract when it can simply be revoked?