Is this legal? Staff handbook and terminating employment?

[insancerre]

I have just started a new job and have been reading the staff handbook and was shocked to read this:_
'We provide services to parents and you are employed to look after thier children. Due to this relationship a parent may from time to time request that an individual be removed from a job. In such circumstances we will investigate the reasons for such requests.
However, if the parent maintains their stance we will then take all reasonable steps to ensure that alternative work is provided.
If this is not possible we may have no alternative but to terminate your employment. This proceedure is separate from any concurrent disciplinary matter which may need to be addressed.'

It doesn't sit right with me. I thought that workers had rights. It seems that all it would take for me to lose my job is a parent to take a dislike to me and the nursery backs the parent all the way.

I mean eh!

You can't just dismiss someone cos of that, only misconduct, performance or redundancy. I would think very carefully about working for this lot.

It's shocking, isn't it? I don't know if the handbook has been written professionally or if they have just made it up themselves. I am having doubts now.

What sort of work are you doing? Are you working in a nursery or are you based in a client's home as a nanny or mother's help or similar?

It is possible that it is a clumsily worded clause relating to what would happen if there was not enough work due to parents removing or threatening to remove their child (redundancy) but that would entirely depend on the type of work being undertaken - and it doesn't really read like that does it?

Just as an aside, if you started work on or after 6th April 2012 an employer can let you go without any reason at any time, in the first two years so long as they pay your notice. There are a few exceptions to this rule, for example discrimination against a protected characteristic or as a consequence for exercising statutory rights.

It's a private nursery, katiemiddleton.
I only started working there on the 10th April.

Is it possible this could be from experience? They could have had a huge conflict between a parent and nursery worker which involved the termination of employment for the worker.

I would speak to you manager about it, ask if it was legally written up or if they have put this in to prevent another conflict happening.

Just a thought.

Rereading it, it basically says if a parent were to complain about your level of care for their child they would probably assess your work/relationships with parents and children/ability to meet all job description requirements and if they find you lacking would fire you.

I will raise the issue with the manager. See what she says.

They may just put it in to help themselves if there is a tribunal claim but I agree it would be hard to enforce although if some member of staff was truly dreadful and parents were going round saying no way is that person going to be my child' s principal carer and all the other parents agreed (and believe it or not sometimes employees are utterly useless) then it might well be fair to dismiss that person.

(KM, it's 1 year for unfair dismissal. Used to be 2 and this Government is considering reverting it to 2)

Xenia - it changed back to two years this month.

It's odd to put it in the handbook but dismissal for this reason might potentially be fair, yes. There are legally 5 potentially fair reasons for dismissal and one of them is a catch-all called "Some Other Substantial Reason". An employer would be expected to make every effort to keep the person through redeployment etc but SOSR is what's used when an important client refuses to work with someone, for example. There is no redundancy, no capability problem, nothing like that, but there is a significant reason why employment can't continue,

If parents were threatening to take their children away then it is possible that it may be fair to dismiss a member of staff for SOSR.

Very unusual to specify it though in a handbook, and I can't see that writing it down would help at all, only make staff uneasy.

You're out of date Xenia. What I put is correct. For anyone employed before 6th April it's still a year but 6th April 2012 onwards it's 2 years now. See here

To be honest the clause looks a nonsense. If there is a problem with care then the disciplinary process would be applicable. If the claim from a parent is malicious then it would be unreasonable to dismiss a member of staff in those circumstances. This clause appears to be separate to the disciplinary process and as such would probably be unenforceable because there's no legal weight to it. But as I said, they can get rid of anyone for any reason if they haven't been there long enough so long as the reason is not discriminatory nor a sanction for exercising a statutory right.

It's likely this is a small business who have no HR advice. I would suggest they use a good independent consultant to review their handbook and policies to check they're compliant, but also to make sure they're clear and easily understood.

x-posted with flowery. I was thinking about the SOSR but in a nursery setting I would think the employee could just be moved to another room or removed as key worker or similar?? I don't know a huge amount about nurseries other than they're all different!

I agree completely it seems a random place to put it in the handbook and adds nothing.

Yes if it were possible to move to another room, or remove as key worker, they would be expected to do that, but if not, SOSR could apply in exactly this situation.

To be fair to them, they do emphasise that they will take all reasonable steps to find alternative work, but if there were a genuine SOSR situation a clause wouldn't be necessary.

I actually think an SOSR dismissal as described in the OP's handbook is not particularly unlikely in the context of a nursery tbh.

Nursery worker does something parent is concerned about. Objectively quite minor, certainly not worthy of gross misconduct dismissal or anything. Parent, understandably not being objective when it comes to care of their child, nevertheless doesn't want worker involved with their child any longer. It might be possible to change key worker, move rooms, but parent tells all the other parents.

Suddenly large groups of parents don't want this employee as their child's key worker, and the nursery owner's business is in jeopardy. There you have your SOSR dismissal as in OP's h/b. Outside the disciplinary process but still fair.

I imagine the reason it's in the h/b is that they've had a problem in this area previously. Good news for OP is that having this written down doesn't reduce your rights at all, and I think discussing it with the nursery owner might be a good idea. No doubt you will be reassured that they would not do this unless absolutely necessary and would support their staff.

"For anyone employed before 6th April it's still a year but 6th April 2012 onwards it's 2 years now. See here"
Thanks. That will be so useful to employers. I'm very pleased. That means for those newly employed from this very month it goes back to 2 years. I suppose it means the poster on the thread though will be under the 1 year rule.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/989/pdfs/uksi_20120989_en.pdf
The Order contains a transitional provision having the effect that the new qualifying periods will not apply to those employees whose period of continuous employment begins before 6th April 2012.

So virtually every mumsnetter will be able to claim unfair dismissal once they have served a year (where indeed they are unfairly dismissed) and anyone newly hired from this month needs 2 years of service.

Was just thinking on this one, insancerre did you raise this with manager?

Also this may affect the employees ability to gain employment, in relation to the Working Together Doc, and the duty to inform LADO if an employer ceases to use the services or dismisses etc. Could have far reaching implications.

So a parent could refuse to have a male carer and then that male carer could be sacked as a result.

A nursery can't sack someone for being homosexual, black, on the grounds of religon or being pregnant.

Dont know if this as been mentioned but a fair reason can be "Some other substantial reason" (SOSR) and this includes what is known as "third party pressure". Lots of requirements with this but essentially the answer the yes they may be able to do this.

Re-reading the provision, could also be conduct or capability I guess. Very poorly drafted in any event!

Exactly reallytired and sadly this does happen, so unfair.

atworknotworking yes I did raise it with the owner. She had paid somebody to write the handbook and didn't even know about this bit. I had to get the handbook out and show it to her
She said it was a bit harsh I questioned whetehr it was legal and why wasn't it linked to the disciplinary process and/ misconduct.
She said she was going to look into it as she didn't like the sound of it either. She did say I was the only one that raised the issue. Guess nobody else bothered to rwad the handbok then.