Reversal of resignation - is that legal?

SFTPhotography

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,926
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27639464

Under employment law, can you actually reverse a resignation and bring someone back into your employment to face a disciplinary? It seems odd. Surely if you quit a job, surely you cannot unquit just to be sacked under a discipinary? What if you get a job elsewhere and as a part of that employment, you cannot be employed elswhere (conflict of interest etc)
 
If they allow him to resign he can leave with any benefits etc he has built up, if they bring him back and sack him he goes with nothing
 
ST4 said:
Which I guess is really shady area under employment law. Can an employer actually refuse an employees termination of employement?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only to make him work his contracted notice period, usually 7-28 days for "normal" types of employment but in senior positions anything up to 26 weeks
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Taken from the gov.uk website...

An employer can’t refuse to accept someone’s resignation and they must follow certain procedures.
When a member of staff resigns you must:
  • get them to confirm their resignation in writing
  • tell them what their notice period is
  • agree when their last day at work will be
  • confirm whether they should work all or part of their notice period
 
If he was already under investigation with a prospect of dismissal, then they may be able to refuse the resignation.
 
As to the OPs question, no.
If the written resognation has been accepted an employer cannot reverse it.
However (and it's been a while) I'm sure there are specific regulations for the police force, especially if the officer in questionis already under suspension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
This may be different if the employee is suspended and is already in the disciplinary process.


EDIT: I wish I could type faster!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Reading it again, he was placed under suspension after the resignation was reversed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
new2me said:
Reading it again, he was placed under suspension after the resignation was reversed.
Click to expand...

So he might have resigned before any disciplinary process, and then had that reseved, then been suspended. Hardly seems fair. The whole thing should just be dropped. If there is a criminal investigation then there is a court process for that and he can be pursued by the CPS/PF whatever, but IMHO this is well off.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27624665

They were intending to investigate, but hadn't given formal notice. There's always more to these stories than the one page ;)

On 13 May, the High Court gave the watchdog permission to begin new disciplinary investigations.

But on 19 May, before the IPCC was able to serve formal notices of investigation, the Met told the watchdog that PC Birks would be leaving the force, which was accepted by the Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
If he has done wrong whilst in the employ of the Police why should he be allowed to leave with benefits, bring him back, find him guilty and string him up in the Market Square and take everything off him.
 
Gary Coyle said:
If he has done wrong whilst in the employ of the Police why should he be allowed to leave with benefits, bring him back, find him guilty and string him up in the Market Square and take everything off him.
Click to expand...

Employment law innit and fairness . It's got to be consistent, I'd hate to leave a job, start a new one, then be brought back to face disciplinary and lose a pension I built up.

Remember, upto this point he's done his job fine. Is it fair to totally strip him of that. If there was significant cause for concern, there'd be a criminal case against him.
 
ST4 said:
Employment law innit and fairness . It's got to be consistent, I'd hate to leave a job, start a new one, then be brought back to face disciplinary and lose a pension I built up.

Remember, upto this point he's done his job fine. Is it fair to totally strip him of that. If there was significant cause for concern, there'd be a criminal case against him.
Click to expand...
But he hasn't left, he was due to leave on the following Monday and his resignation was overturned, the Police are only applying the employment laws in order to "make him pay"

Not saying its morally right or wrong but if he had done something wrong while in my employ theres no way i would want him to leave taking loads of benefits with him and laughing as he closed the door behind him
 
I'm not sure the police have the same set of rules as regards employment law, because of the nature of the job. I've seen before where officers are refused permission to resign before an inquiry has been completed.
 
No, Police Officers don't have the same rights as everyone else in the UK when it comes to employment law.
There are restrictions which (possibly) didn't exist when he joined, and one of those is that if you have been served with a 163, a formal notice of investigation into disciplinary or criminal matters, you can be prevented from resigning, or retiring.

The IPCC had already served him with that formal notice once, and then I understand, with a subsequent form saying that no further action would be taken. As the result of the Inquest, they have now decided to have another bite at the cherry. No doubt if they don't find a reason to hang the officers concerned this time, they will try again, and again and again in the usual IPCC desperate attempts to get a Police Officers found guilty. The simple fact is that the IPCC is as independent as attilla the hun!

As they have not served him with a new 163, he should be free to leave if he wishes. The IPCC just want to have a body to show.

This is an utter waste of public money. The CPS have already binned any idea of criminal proceedings, so the most that can happen is a Kangaroo Court Marshal, which has resemblance to a Blackadder episode, where Gen. Melchett gives the order "March in the Guilty Bas......" and follows that by asking where the Black cap is, as he will need it. No evidence of course having been heard. And indeed the only evidence that will be taken any notice of in any Disciplinary hearing will be that against the officer, however dubious it is.

The most that can happen, is the officer gets sacked, pointless considering he wants to resign! Letting him stay of course means that we the tax payers will have to pay him for that time, and the IPCC are not known for being quick, efficient or very good at investigating things. As for his pension, it remains, it can't be stripped from him unless there are very good grounds. It has only happened a few times since that option was given to Police Authorities (Now PCC's), and would doubtless be challenged by the Federation if that was tried.
 
I know loads of police officers who have retired on sick pay left on the Friday and then come back to work doing the same job on the Monday as a civy ! Not quite the same thing but jobs for the boys!
 
There's a huge number of officers allowed to resign/retire rather than face prosecution, probably in the modern police force because it's cheaper and avoids bad publicity, which would reflect on the senior officers.
So it's quite interesting to see that this one is different. Publicity the other way?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I know loads of police officers who have retired on sick pay left on the Friday and then come back to work doing the same job on the Monday as a civy ! Not quite the same thing but jobs for the boys!
Click to expand...

That's the nature of the modern police force though, there's a lot of civilian workers, however they won't be on the same terms, so the costs are reduced.
 
....and to show the other face of the coin......

I have a friend who has retired from the Met, but still has to attend court cases (currently starting October) with only minimal expenses to be paid.
 
Byker28i said:
There's a huge number of officers allowed to resign/retire rather than face prosecution, probably in the modern police force because it's cheaper and avoids bad publicity, which would reflect on the senior officers.
So it's quite interesting to see that this one is different. Publicity the other way?
Click to expand...

Resigning or retiring doesn't get you out of criminal prosecutions.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I know loads of police officers who have retired on sick pay left on the Friday and then come back to work doing the same job on the Monday as a civy ! Not quite the same thing but jobs for the boys!
Click to expand...

Police officers on restricted duties due to health can't perform the full role of an officer hence they work in office jobs. If they retire and then come back as a civvy it is cost effective for the force to employ them as such. Lower wages, no training required, allowing a fully fit officer to be hired in their place. Yes the ex-officer will be getting their pension too, but they'd be getting that anyway. There are many less office jobs these days so this happens less and less.
 
Those links relate to disciplinary action not prosecution..... Two completely different things. If you look at the reasoning behind it, ie saving public money, then what is the problem? Disciplinary action always takes place after any criminal proceedings so if an officer were found guilty of an offence at court they then have their disciplinary hearing after the result, while waiting for this they are on full pay. Whatever the result of the hearing the public purse isn't going to benefit. It is very rare or a pension to be taken away as, believe it or not, we do still have some employment rights!
 
There's a huge number of officers allowed to resign/retire rather than face prosecution, probably in the modern police force because it's cheaper and avoids bad publicity, which would reflect on the senior officers.
So it's quite interesting to see that this one is different. Publicity the other way?
Click to expand...

Easy to say, so where's the evidence supporting that statement? Old episodes of Panorama, or anything printed in the Mail does not constitute evidence.

You can't resign any more if you are being investigated. It's been that way for a number of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top