how is back to the point before the pointless flaming began its normal to think that a manager - a person of authority when asking a worker "can i see what you are doing on screen" or "can i check what is in your documents folder" or "for routine security checks i need to gain access to your user profile to do random security checks" a worker would deem it fine to allow this in fear of saying no will lead to questions such as "why not what are you hiding" so if a manager asks a worker can i use your user profile to check something then a worker would deem it fine as that person is a authority figure of theirs so yes its a idea - a hyperthetical - but its a possible defense that is why the OP allowed access to the manager as its normal practice to allow managers access - how is the blue statement erroneous in law - its a real life experience many people have allowed their managers to access their logins for managerial tasks as they are their superior. we do not know if managers are or are not allowed to borrow passwords in the OPs workplace - so rather then dismissing a possibility purely because you dont know the facts is less then helpful, then to guess a possibility and to try and offer advice leave it to the OP to accept or reject where managers have more powers and responsibilities MAY be allowed to access others logins for multiple reasons. No. Where managers have more powers and responsibilities they will be given access as appropriate under their own passwords. There is never a good reason for shared passwords. actually many managers are allowed to use other peoples logins for security purposes where files are encrypted and only accessable with said persons login and managers can access their login to ensure that no bad activities are being commited or where a manager needs to audit information on said persons login as part of their managerial duties plus in this case concerning the OP situation the managers intention was to abuse his powers to alter his wages. most businesses would not allow managers access to their own payroll information so this is why the said manager would use someone elses - also possibly to avoid suspicsion that it was them that done it. so there are real life reasons managers are allowed access and there was a reason this OPs manager done it so dont red writing me leave it for the OP to read and if the hypothetical is incorrect then they can reply with a more detailed account any advice is better then no advice sarel dont reply if your just going to red writing it - stick to the OP comments not other posters that being said we do respect your advice when giving it but you are not a moderator and there is more to employment then just law

sarels advice has been to many - story is unclear so cant advise dont deal with hypotheticals its not happened yet so cannot comment well sarel uses fancy words like tupe and that lot to look good but forgets to offer actual practical advice about the wat if's so that the person is prepared for anything you think bomb disposal workers learn by just opening the box and seeing what happens and then seeking advice after once they know whats inside pfft thats a stupid and narrowminded way of giving advice its better to give OP possibilities such as like i was saying the OP does not have much to worry about - the only thing would be is if the new winning bid led to the charity changing from [hypothetically] changing from looking after kids with medical needs to kids with mobility needs that is a valid point to make to the OP so sarel dont flame me again allow the OP to decide to read it or not. advice here is free and it is not legally binding and no one is held accountable so there is no need for a editor the moderators will edit out foul language so leave it at that you stick to your wait and see whats in pandorah box and once the snowball of disciplinarys -redundancies begins then file tribunal - heard that [not verbatim] stepping stone of thoughts on so many threads and others will think of human ideas and experiences and possibilities your a legal expert not a forum moderator - stop provoking trouble because you cant give a straight answer and then flame posters when they still seek answers and when others post answers where you could not we are all human lets all get along and stop this stuff if you cannot give a straight answer dont answer if you just gonna reply to edit someone dont reply its for the OP to decide on the information and they will seek legal support from solicitors in their area or legal aid if things happen - until then its free stop mothering people thinking you know more - yes you know more about the law but not about actual employment - you dont know how to carve a hip bone out of a cow in under 40 seconds in a slaughter house you dont know KFC secret ingrediant there thousands of things about employment you do not know so dont flame others just because we are not sticking to law books - some of us give real world advise so lets all get along and leave it to the op to read or ignore - stop mothering the forums as if mother knows best - in actual fact people learn more from their peers then their mothers so lets all just post our own separate pieces of advice and dont reply if you just gonna quote me adding red writing that being said we do respect your advice but please ease off on the harshness when you cannot give a full answer or when posters still seek advice because you could not give it theres more to employment then just law

back to the point before the pointless flaming began its normal to think that a manager - a person of authority when asking a worker "can i see what you are doing on screen" or "can i check what is in your documents folder" or "for routine security checks i need to gain access to your user profile to do random security checks" a worker would deem it fine to allow this in fear of saying no will lead to questions such as "why not what are you hiding" so if a manager asks a worker can i use your user profile to check something then a worker would deem it fine as that person is a authority figure of theirs so yes its a idea - a hyperthetical - but its a possible defense that is why the OP allowed access to the manager as its normal practice to allow managers access dont flame me sarel - its just a idea - leave it for the OP to correct or ignore me the OP wants ideas and hints about possible defenses not simply saying if you cant reveal every detail we cant help [not verbatim] atleast pointing the OP into directions is a start if they cant reveal enough. i laughed at your point you tried to make totally misinterpretting its meaning where declining a request for access may have led to a breach of trust and faith as a manager could then have said they had "reasonable belief" OP was hiding something as they refused access when asked In which case the manager should have reported anything that they thought was being hidden. That is the correct thing to do, not use someone elses password to sneak around. There are porper channels for suspected miscinduct - this would not be one of them. imagine the manager went up to the OP and asked for access and the OP declined the managers reason for asking was for fraud!!! so why would they then report the OP for anything that they thought was being hidden. the point was that the manager was abusing his authority to gain access to a login to commit fraud so would be unlikely to then report if someone said no in fear of the manager then being asked - why were you even asking for access [yes above is another hyperthetical to explain the details of the initial hyperthetical] remember the managers intention was for wage increasing not to get OP in trouble!! i just offering ideas and hypertheticals - please if you dont have imagination to understand that its just advice or some possiblility then stick to your legal advice about how to file papers and let others freely offer their advice the OP can decide to use the hyperthetical if it sounds like wat happened as only the OP truly knows - so if the OP cannot tell us the full details of what happened there is nothing wrong with us posting possible occurances and then use the defence of the advice of the yperthetical that sounds closest to their story. after all when OP reads this and starts forming their defence its better to be giving some advice then simply stating we dont knwo so we cant say - or it hasnt happened yet so we cant say thats not advice thats avoiding being accountable - remember this is a non legal forum no one should be held accountable its just offering free friendly support and options so relax and let everyone offer any advice. if you dont have the answer dont reply if you want to flame someone dont reply leave it for the OP to disregard as i have read your posts to others [not just me] seem narrow minded - avoiding answering a question and then getting agressive when the person still feels they need support so relax you stick to your experties and leave others to offer ideas [imaginary hypertheticals] to start the OPs thinking do not reply to me just give op advice no need to argue OP wants answers and suggestions so give suggestions not flame others without offering suggestions of defense so again advice to OP is to find out when it is appropriate for a authority figure to request access to your login for whatever reason and use that as your defense that you allowed them in as you thought it was a all above board managers task they needed to persue on your login and that you had no idea they would cause fraud using it as they seemed genuine about the way they asked for the access hope this helps - as its only a idea and i cannot be held accountable so feel free to ignore if it sounds rediculously nothing like what happened

the OP gave access to the pc to a superior of theirs not a colleague. -with following manager orders is a part of a persons job role. -where managers have more powers and responsibilities MAY be allowed to access others logins for multiple reasons. -where declining a request for access may have led to a breach of trust and faith as a manager could then have said they had "reasonable belief" OP was hiding something as they refused access when asked employer just simply having a case of you gave manager a password which lead to your sacked is not good enough OP defense should be to look into times when managers are allowed access to logins for hyperthetical reasons above - there may be more also if OP mentioned in the investigations - disciplinarys that others shared passwords with managers before and company agreed it has - this will help too and also becareful if the manager concerned adjusted OP wage as a thankyou for access - as that is the deathrow to the case. anything else should be treated as a discommunication between the ranks that the OP thought it was for managerial duties which an employee should follow

again seral has mis understood what points i was making - i was going to try explaining better but instead i will just say this the op wants lists of possiblities and things to ease their mind - any advice is better then just saying wait and see whats inside the box and then come back to us - [not verbatim] imagine the advice was given to a bomb disposal expert asking for training before taking on a possible suspect box - he comes to a forum seeking advice about a future possibility and the only response he gets was. nothing has happened yet so dont worry just wait and see whats inside the box and then come back to us and we can help you with what you need to do - we dont deal with hypotheticals [not verbatim] bang ouch no arms forum reply oh dont worry now you can seek legal action people come here seeking assistance about things they dont know - sometimes you do have to guess and think hypothetically to give them advice they would rather be trained and prepared for any and every posibility then to just be told to go away and comeback later its already deemed normal practice that what is said is just advice and guideance and not to be treated as a legal right to persue the advice simply by its suggestion. so relax and make some hypotheticals now and again help the OP out and dont flame or knit pick, especially if wat you have read has not been put into context of a hyperthetical or guess.

did the manager concerned get dismissed for fraud by adjusting his wages? if not then this alone should mean you should have been given a lesser punishment out of box thinking if so imagine it was a murder case and someone asked you for a persons address and you did not know why but gave them it- that person then gets murdered is if fair the murderer gets a slapped wrist and you get the jail time simply because you gave the murderer access to the victim but if both dismissed then it would be worth reading into employment terms and conditions about the privacy and access restrictions. as sometimes your not allowed to give colleagues your access details but you are allowed to give management access to your login [for multiple reasons such as audits-random security checks - etc] if management were allowed access so they can check up on your work then this is your defense that you deemed it a standard practice work/security check thus not questioning the reasons - and it was the manager that then abused and misused his authority not you

can i just ask prior to this new target were you positioned on a till because you did not have to be a sales person asking questions and talking and listening to customers ie they found it acceptable with your disability to simply scan the products through the till and limit your interactions to a hi - thats £20 - thank you for shopping here - goodbye as now setting you a target if you never had a target can be seen as a change of job role were there other targets you had set before this as there could be grounds that you can be made exempt from having targets set if no target was set before as part of your job role and your disability will cause you to be penalised by such actions thus leading to a constructive dismissal if the two point [no targets prior] [job role suggested to avoid interaction problems] then you could suggest to management that it is unfair to change the terms of your job role inconcern to your disability. but if you have had targets before to for instance ask customers if they would like a phone case or a bluetooth headset as part of your job then the terms have not changed i would then seek some CAB [citizens advice] about having a mediation meeting to see if they can make you exempt from asking questions as a reasonable adjustment to ensure your continual employment but this is just a suggestion - please reply with more details about the limits of the job role prior to target so we can see clearer picture of the targets and also if they inconcern to disabilty gave you notice and warning of the changes to ensure you had time to seek advice or talk to your boss about the change

the authories contract does not effect your mothers contract simply because they have won a bid the local area contract is a 'deal' or 'agreement' between the council and the the charity. your mothers employment is a 'deal' or 'agreement' between your mother and the charity. they are two separate things. if your mother had a expiry date then there would be a few things to worry about at expiry but your mother is on a permanent contract and so your mother has less to worry about. normally winning a contract like this [as it sounds like it will increase area's of work] would mean the charity will be recruiting and not making redundancies. the only concern by thinking out of the box i can see is if your mother was trained purely to care for certain children but now all caring positions were to be replaced with a different set of children requiring different skill sets what i mean is if your mother is trained to care for school children with mobility support needs but the whole charity has shifted away from mobility support over to children with respiratory [oxygen needs] in a hospital / hospice for instance requiring medical support. then there is possibilities of alot of changes to contract or chances of redundancies if she lacks the training. but normally charities are not that nasty and would offer training the real question is has the charity also retained its current providers and working locations or is the inhome-hospice-hospital [for instance] a full replacement from schools sorry i guessing locations as its not clear and i suggest when children involved you dont want to go into to much risks as i know there are rules about admitting certain work details publicly just reply with the basics - old work locations to continue along side new contracted locations or complete change around requiring new skill sets mother lacks if old work places are retained then at most all your mother has to worry about is probably having to have a updated CRB check done which will be nothing to worry about

if getting on and off a moving vehicle is classed as a health and safety issue and worthy of gross misconduct hearing then the fact that your colleagues recieved warnings shows that they did commit a offence otherwise the verdict would have been innocent with no warning or slapped wrist at all the difference between you and other colleagues may be how you dealt and responded with the hearing where they may have been apologetic and pleaded that they would not get on wagon x in that manner again where you may have suggested that your within your right to do it and feel that you can continue to do it even after knowing colleagues received warnings for a health and safety misconduct, you did not try to avoid any risk and continued to walk on and off the moving wagon i know you have been doing it for years but when health and safety is concerned no rule can over-ride it and health and safety limits can change instantly if from one day a mondane task leads to a injury they can change the risk levels to reduce chances of further injuries was your initial defense that it is acceptable to do this - or apologetic that you will take extra care in the future when judging speeds etc so just be careful how you word your defense. may suggest asking how wagon x is different to wagons y or z where they would deem it as acceptable to make a judgement call. whether any memos were sent out warning that out of all wagon types wagon x risk rating has been raised and should only be entered at a full and complete stop the use of colleagues receiving lighter punishment is a weak defence as they did infact receive a punishment for example some well known celebrities may only recieve light sentances for drugs, sexual acts or murder. would you deem it fair for ALL criminals to be awarded community service instead of a prison sentance all because one person got a lighter sentance. each punishment is based on the individual circumstances and also how the accused pleads and feels responsible for.

from what i read " I have been given a list of four jobs that it has been established I have the skill set for." and a 5th job came to light "Expression of interest were invited from all staff for 2 jobs that were not on my skill set list " ;i would say the ring fence gives you strength for the initial 4 jobs to get a interview but the 5th job is free for anyone to apply for and for any employer to request a interview with based on cv or statement i would say by 5th job not being in your skill set is the reason why you did not get a interview. the personal statement are usually asked incase the company records failed to include skills which fit the job role that you may have achieved over the time. if you simply did not produce a personal statement and hoped to explain yourself at a interview instead then they could only base who qualifies for a interview based on the skills they already know of. which in own admission were not applicable to the role. did you send in a personal statement within the timeframe showing skills they did require to do the job? if so ask them for the feedback to aid you in the 4 jobs you are ring fenced for to ensure you appear sparkling on the list of potentials

i believe what you recieved through the post was a offer as it was not signed and posted back to then become a contract - until you show that you have accepted it either verbally or more formally with a signature then it is treated as a offer which unless it say please reply by march [imaginary date] then the offer can be withdrawn did the delivered papers have a reply by date as that shows more of a case that they should leave the offer open until the expiry date did you sign it or say you accepts offer A or B prior with either boss or his friend prior to the renewal it might be that the boss withdrew the renewal as he forgot to adjust the pay to match-compete against his friend and a new renewel is on its way. so it might be worth buying your friend-boss a pint at the pub and have a off the record chat about what happened to letters. buy him a bag of nuts or a packet of crisp to lol sweeten him up and keep it positive

agreed as soon as you type in ladies into google images the results [thumbnails] end up on the hard drive - also by inapropriate use of internet by visiting facebook is considered inapropriate as it has no bases towards the business in other words unless is a manufacturing website then any website could be considered as inapropriate. each file on a pc is date stamped [right click properties of a file and look at "created" date] if you have a set time you go out for shop floor call outs or a lunchbreak hopefully this created date falls within one of these times and so thats your defense into was it you but leads you then into a new accuation of publising log in details or not using security features [logging off] another idea think about what websites you would normally access that are legitimate websites but may have a banner bar or a gallery page for less then apropriate stuff does your manufacturing company deal with CAD or the use or scale prototype models to then replicate into finished materials[sorry forgive lack of manufacturing terminology] could you have used the word models [as in small scale objects] and google results thought you meant posed ladies the model search term is another possible defence but ask for the search evidence first of the search terms used before you use it as they may check it if you mention posible words hopefully models are used in your business and you have used that search term as then your defense is that the it department did not set restrictions and you are too niave to know how to remove them

(edit - previous thread re-opened) ok here goes i decided to via telephone inform the investigator that i am declining the job offer on medical grounds as my resignation letter stated that there was no positive way forward in staying with the company and could not find a alternative job role or location that would avoid future business issues or stress. he replied in saying he understood and the next step would be to write my reasons to decline the job offer to HR. 5 minutes later he phones me up all apologetic about the circumstances of 2009-2010 and said treat this as off the record- it would be financially beneficial if i state that i have feel that i have been constructively dismissed in 2010 and the reasons why as they do have a settlement pot without needing things to escalate to tribunals or court cases as he feels i was treated harshly so anyone know of the best way to write a letter as my mind has just gone back to IQ of 2 what i want to say is i resigned under protest in 2010 due to the harrassment and insulting memos and the ignorant disciplinarys that had managerial tasks set to deal with symptoms of a medical condition which is truthfully listed as a disability on the disability discriminations act. that at the time of the resignation i had already thought of all alternative job roles and locations but found no role would be suitable in relation to my disability that would satisfy the business needs. - i just want it to not sound all waffly i heard theres words i should avoid using so that it does not appear that the business is innocent and that i just resigned out of job boredom or just left voluntarily as you can tell by the chats with advisors on here wen i try to say something it gets misunderstood and i would say that it probably is due to my head not being in the game so i seek some support to ensure i dont waffle or write it wrong where it gets mis understood i dont like to make my personal appearance issue public knowledge and so i am reluctant to explain the finer details of this on the letter to whomever would read it. but would i have to get into the finer details of the reasons for the insults the disciplinarys as its become a touchy subject ie before 2009 i didnt mind people looking at me but now i try to hide from stareing eyes when i go shopping work has royally messed with my confidence and my health

i would say head office say they do not care about the swap between £7-30 unsociable hours pay for the intial hour and the same figure for the overtime as a way of avoiding telling the truth [in my opinion only] what they are hoping is that they can be rid of you within 2 months and so in that short period they can live with the finances the way they are. it is hard to know a head office true end gameplan but i would suggest atleast getting it officially noted down on a grievance or something how these changes wont benefit employee - business - or customer as you can then refer to this later if dismissed that the company were fully aware of it but still sort to measures which would cause the employment termination i can also see by you now starting an hour later due to their change they may cunningly try blaming the customer complaints and late arrivals on you by saying you arrived late which shows a lack of time keeping or lack of motivation as a possible excuse to then discipline you for something out of your control. so again get it noted that the changes bosses make will cause issues to protect you against any other disciplinarys based around the late deliveries being blamed on you i know you think the £28 is alot of money to lose but compared to government benefits keeping your job is a better idea - dont let them win - maybe cut out a little luxury in you homelife to not put as much strain on your finances and just protect your reputation incase they cant push you out for financial reasons and so begin trying disciplinary routes. with the "taking our time" statement be careful. yes working extra slow is a form of protest but try not to be too slow as they may start doing time and motion studies on you and see that you are sat round or walking the warehouse for longer then it would normally take. or where for last 6 months it took you 30minutes to drive to customer 1 now takes 45-60 minutes so dont slow down your driving just ensure the prep work is not rushed. if you get my meaning. again if you are on a hourly wage then by just turning up at the hour later due to not being paid for the prep hour would normally put strain on the delivery deadlines to cause customer complaints and you are left innocent as the delay is not caused by your misdoings. i do not suggest slowing down on purpose to cause protest as your actions can cause further delays and impact to the business - but that being said in normal jobs there are always things that employees dont do to get a job done in a rush and over the years you might have learned a few tricks to speed up the prep work - a suggestion that is ok to use is to UN-learn these and just do the job fully and methodically at a active pace eg if you are suppose to count the number of news papers individually as part of your job but have learned that a pile of news papers at knee height equals 100 papers [imaginary number] saves you time having to count them - just go back to counting them again - just unlearn any rush tricks after all they are your tricks not the businesses and any new employees they may employ wont know them so it is fair to be active - just do it to the book to protect yourself goodluck and lets hope in a months time the complaints and threads of losing customers gives the company enough stress to just pay you for a earlier start goodluck

edited out