I have started this petition to urge Parliament and The Right Honourable Priti Patel MP. Minister of State for Employment to amend UK employment law to extend protection to employees by preventing employers being able to dismiss staff following disciplinary processes if their conclusion of guilt was reached via a ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than from a confession or concrete evidence that proved guilt to a comparable level as ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

I have been summarily dismissed from my job.  Following a year of low level harassment by a senior manager I was suspended for an offence which I didn't commit.  During the investigation process it became clear that this senior manager's accusation was relying on circumstantial evidence that I had actually done something wrong but I also only had circumstantial evidence to refute it.  The 'balance of probabilities' decision ignored the supporting evidence of my witness and other supporting circumstantial evidence I could provide, my 14 years unblemished service record and character references supplied by colleagues.  Because UK Employment Law allows employers to dismiss staff without 'beyond reasonable doubt' level evidence I had no protection in law.  Now, at 57 I have no job and at my age and with loss of reputation I am unlikely to be able to get another, am likely to lose all the security I have worked for over the years including my home.  Having to re-locate to available 'affordable' rented accommodation could mean moving a significant distance which will cause me to lose contact with my children and grandchildren, as well as having to give up my cats and dogs for adoption or failing that have them destroyed.

Currently even with serious disciplinary accusations UK employers do not have to prove the employee’s guilt to a comparable level as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to be legally able to dismiss them out of hand. Evidence for disciplinary proceedings is governed by civil law which merely requires the employer to be able to justify their action by showing they could ‘reasonably’ assume the employee was guilty on a ‘balance of probabilities’, meaning that when the available evidence from both sides of the issue is circumstantial employers can select any scenario that could ‘reasonably’ be considered as possible in the given situation and opt for it, regardless of any circumstantial evidence the employee has produced to support their innocence. When making a ‘balance of probabilities’ determination the employer does not have to demonstrate that the known personal attributes of the employee, such as length of service, good character, etc. have been taken into consideration when reaching the ‘balance of probabilities’ determination providing they claim it has been in the determination wording and their selected scenario can be justified as a ‘reasonable’ one from the provable elements of the situation.

Without provable evidence the maximum ‘balance of probabilities’ outcome should be limited to the employer’s highest level of internal disciplinary sanction short of dismissal, at least for a first ‘offence’. If there were any subsequent serious disciplinary accusations without provable evidence, perhaps a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ type of system, as is operated in criminal law in some areas of the US, would protect accused employees from instances of covert bullying and harassment by their employers whilst still enabling employers to action dismissal for genuine offenders who have been careful not to leave any provable evidence.

The severity of the consequences to an individual from being dismissed by their employer are extreme and long lasting, destroying their career and prospects for future employment for many years. Even if the individual does manage to secure an interview, with such a black mark on their employment record what future employer will want to take a gamble on an unknown when there are dozens of other applicants, equally well qualified, without these question marks? Those of us who are innocent of our employer’s accusations should be protected under law from being deprived of the means of making a living, supporting ourselves and our families, based purely on the prejudices or hidden agenda of our employer.