Furious at ds work dismissal

Why would you assume that? Not everyone goes to university.

Good for him ???

I have found that people who are persistently late, don’t quite get that whatever their reason for being late is, is often irrelevant. And these people no matter what will keep being late, because they got up late, because they left the house late, because they don’t plan their journey, because they couldn’t find their keys, because, because, because!

Obviously there are occasions when lateness is beyond our control, and in those situations an apology suffices. But constant lateness is not acceptable when everyone else manages to get there on time.

It starts from childhood and us as parents getting our infant children to school on time. No child likes to be the one that walks in late and everyone looks at them and they in their infancy don’t even have the skills to make an excuse. Learning to be punctual is a life skill as is learning to swim. Not skills everyone learns though.

I’m currently early at my job by about 15 mins or so, less if I drive. Better to be early than late. Things like making tea, setting up the laptop take time too so at least when work starts I’m there.

cmon Op. Instead of seeing your arse, of course he needs to turn up to work on time,

The thing is that we don't know what in this situation is true and that son is 19, so shouldn't be relying on mum to get him up.
Yes she is right to be annoyed, but clearly there is something that doesn't make sense with either the son being exceptionally late more than he has let on, or he has made the whole thing up about being told it was ok to be late (maybe as you say so he didn't have to get up earlier).
It could also be the whole thing about lateness is not the reason either and maybe the son hasn't actually told mum the reason he was dismissed and he has made up this as the real reason is more embarrassing.

Imagine being a business and not being able to sack someone who is clearly not putting the effort in

Also, if he was rocking up 5 or ten mins late most days and apologising and blaming the train, just because his supervisor said 'never mind, it happens' doesn't mean they are completely cool with it. He was very naive to think that he needn't worry about being late very frequently, in spite of what was being said.

It does unavoidably happen on occasion with any type of commute involving transport of some sort, but if it happening more frequently than expected, the solution should be blindingly obvious.

They were looking for signs that he would realise this and taken the appropriate action himself. He didn't. He needed to be told. But as I said, this is very unlikely to have been the only issue.

One of the people who was eventually sacked by me used to frequently text to say he would be late or not in at all, because his car wouldn't start. He lived 45 minutes away and he would never let us know until after he was already late. In spite of the fact that if he was ever going to be on time he should have been trying to start his car an hour ago.

On the days when he was simply late, I realised he just couldn't drag himself out of bed.

On the days when he didn't make it in at all, I accept that he probably did have problems with his car. I did not accept that he couldn't walk to the bus stop or jump on the train instead, preferring to throw his hands up in resignation that he simply wouldn't manage to get to work that day.

His argument was that the bus or train took too long, the walk to the station was too far and he'd never have applied for the job if he'd thought he'd need to use public transport because it was too much hassle. My argument is that in general he didn't have to use PT, but he should be prepared to use it short term, in emergency situations rather than simply not come to work at all.

This is the sort of thing that really sorts the wheat from the chaff.

@stichguru “My employer is "ok" with me being a few minutes late.

• I try to get the 7.50
• sometimes I miss it and get the 8.03
• sometimes the 8.03 misses or is 10 mins late”

I was wondering if it was some like.

And this;

“I think the OP is turning nasty on here to avoid conflict with her son. Clearly something isn't adding up here and she isn't giving any answers to sensible questions” @Moonnstarz . If mum was constantly telling DS to “get up, get a move on, you are going to be late” - remember those school days? And then he looses his job because he didn't listen, we would all be a bit pissed wouldn’t we and then you come on MN and everyone says what she has been telling him, it must feel a bit raw.

I will add that of course I do not know, but I do remember those days getting a teenager out of bed, for school and for first job.

But it shouldn’t have even been an issue. If an earlier train is an option then that should have been the one he was catching every day from the start… “I have to be at work by this time…let’s look at the timetable…oh, that one will make me slightly late every day so it’ll have to be the one before.” SIMPLE! Why are you cross with the employer? You should be cross with your son!

He has no right to take a case to a tribunal simply for failure to follow procedure with only a few weeks service.

The right to be accompanied applies from day 1 as it's a statutory right and can still raise it with ACAS, its a maximum of 2 weeks pay compensation award if the right has been refused

He was unreasonable having to be told.

Plus after a month he has no employment rights, ACAS aren’t going to be able to help.

He should know that it’s on him to get to his job on time. If he doesn’t, he’s going to struggle with future employment.

It is concerning that you are blaming his employer for this. He sounds unprepared for the working world.

🙂

Gets “the train” - sorry but is this a once-a-day train or the first train of the day? If not then it’s likely they weren’t ok with it at all but were flabbergasted a man of 19 can’t figure out that he needs to get the earlier train.

He can't take action, he does not have long enough service and they were entitled to dismiss him. Incorrect procedure cannot be taken to a tribunal with only one month service if the sacking was legal.

He could only do it as a civil case against them.

Obviously he isn't in a position to pay for that and nobody would take it on as no win no fee because it was legal for him to be sacked, just not quite in the way they did it, and he has therefore lost nothing which he can claim for.

Imagine not using your initiative to catch the earlier train to arrive at work on time.

His employer had a lucky escape. OP's son isn't an asset.

It won't change the unfair dismissal but they've still (potentially) denied him the statutory right to be accompanied which he could take action against for them, would only get a maximum of 2 weeks compensation but still

The OP isn't going to provide this information 😂

Exactly.

He would have no right to take an unfair dismissal case for procedure not being followed, so it won't make any difference.

(He is due notice though, so the complaint about the train fare spent to go in and be sacked isn't relevant. )

Maybe they did. Perhaps he had a verbal warning early on, we don't know.

I know, it's so basic. Schools do this with punctuality to prepare them for the future, you'd think it would sink in.

He shouldn't have needed to be told to get an earlier train to arrive at work on time! YABVU. It's pretty basic that you need to organise yourself to arrive at work before the appointed start time!!

I employ several young people all in their late teens to mid 20s. We've had two or three in the past who were constantly late, constantly off sick, always asking to either come in late or go home early for some reason, always making excuses for things. None of those three people are still with us. They were all sacked eventually for unreliability.

I have another three people of roughly the same age who are fantastic. Two out of three of them have long journeys on rural buses that are not that frequent but in the four months they've been there they've never been late once. They get in ridiculously early out of choice because they know that although a later bus would get them there on time in theory, if it was cancelled they'd be very late.

I've never asked them to do this but I hugely appreciate their commitment and work ethic and I will make sure they are rewarded for it. What is interesting is that they are generally much more conscientious and more enthusiastic in all other areas of the job than the previous set of people were, as well. They have a real 'can do' attitude instead of trying to get away with doing as little as possible.

So it's likely that it wasn't just this lad's lateness that was grating on his employer. Perhaps his lateness was a symptom of lacklustre performance in general.

That may not be true and may be an unfair assumption of this lad, but my gut feeling is I'm right. As an employer myself, if I had someone who was generally doing well I'd want to give them a chance to sort out the areas where they were falling short, especially if it was something with an easy solution. If not understanding the need to get an earlier train after less than a month on the job was the only problem, I'd talk to them about it and give them some time to correct it. They are on probation so there would be plenty more time to sack them if necessary.