A friend applied to join them 7 months back (early July 2016), and commenced work in mid August 2016.

As part of Job app'n to join them they had to complete a " reference information form".

First I'm wondering if any members are currently in the process of joining them, or have recently joined, and have seen the above form, and recollect or know it's content.

There's general info on the their website, but the actual form is not available to review.

From what she recollects there was a box to tick asking if she had a record of disciplinary proceedings .

Truth was she was on suspension in her old job during the entire 2 week interview recruitment period, but suspension per se is of course NOT a disciplinary process or proceedings.

Two days before she left her old job (12 August) the "investigation" held during her suspension was concluded,

this led to a disciplinary hearing two days later and she was summarily dismissed on her last day of work !

Fact is that the whole process was a sham (yes, she would say that, but it was) and as she had handed her notice in anyhow, she could not be bothered to defend the ludicrous allegations, and elected to just move on, didn't bother appealing or taking an Unfair Dismissal claim to Emp't Tribunal etc.

Her old employer gave her a bog standard reference, and also made no reference to any suspension etc.

She was also bullied by a former colleague (see below).

yesterday she's hauled into a meeting with their HR and they tell her that her an ex colleague had contacted them and informed them that my friend had been dismissed.

As a result they jumped to the conclusion that my friend had lied in the app'n process as she did not tell them about her dismissal ..

... albeit after the job offer had been accepted and her references vetted etc .

She is now suspended, and her manager told her she'll be dismissed, even in a fact finding interview.

It is my opinion that they should not accuse of her lying as I think that when applying to them you only have to tick a box on the reference inf'n form IF you have been subject of disciplinary proccedings. At the time of applying for and accepting the job, she had not ; she was merely suspended.

Yes, in theory she could have told them about the sham disciplinary and outcome when she joined, but there is no implied duty in law on an employee to do so.

With less than 2 yrs in employment, we all know that employers can normally do whatever they want to get rid,

but friend is disabled,

and that's why she was bullied and picked on in last job.

Thus her new employer needs to tread more carefully.

She has already been called a wheelchair freak by new colleagues.

Nice.

I have prepared this post as a friend, and any comments re them are my opinion only based on my understanding of the facts,

You seem to be placing a lot of faith in legislation that, at the best of times, offers far less protection than most people think. And, in this case - no protection at all.

The reason for the employers suspension of her has nothing whatsoever to do with a disability.

The action they have taken would have happened to anyone in the same situation.

So the Equality Act has absolutely no relevance.

Since that is the case, she has less than two years service and can be dismissed for almost any reason.

She has relied on semantics to slide over the suspension at her previous employers and has been caught out.

I am afraid that was a choice, and one that, in this case, has not paid off.

What new colleagues are alleged to have said has no relevance to this at all.

If people made discriminatory remarks, those should have been raised with the manager at the time they were made, and dealt with appropriately.

She cannot drag this into what is now happening as evidence that the employer is discriminating, because they are not.

They are treating her in exactly the same way as they would treat anyone else, and that, surely, is what equality is about?

My concern would be finding out who passed the information onto the employer.

She cannot drag this into what is now happening as evidence that the employer is discriminating, because they are not. They are treating her in exactly the same way as they would treat anyone else, and that, surely, is what equality is about?

Agree Sangie. But, she has some other angles.

You refer to semantics ..... in that regard what are you referring to ?

My concern would be finding out who passed the information onto the employer.

Found out.

Was manager who victimised my friend at old job in London.

Same manager put her on suspension day after she raised a grievance against same manager for alleged discriminatory conduct.

Manager made call to new employer without permission of their employer !

Have called in the Police and they are interviewing ex manager for criminal harassment and disability hate crime.

Semantics in terms of the fact that she knew she was suspended and that a disciplinary may be or was pending, and said nothing.

She knew she had been asked this question, and knew she had been subsequently dismissed and still said nothing.

And for whatever her reasons were, she failed to defend herself and she failed to appeal or take further action

- so the dismissal is a matter of truthful record, and the facts of that stand.

All of this goes to trust and confidence.

Just look at the way you wrote about this - and you are on her side!

The statement is loaded with the implication that it was technically true at that exact time, but it's kind of defensive

- because one cannot be anything other than defensive.

She played word games and she lost.

She has given them a reason to dismiss her when they don't even need a reason.

And, to be blunt, unless she raised her grievance about the other incidents before all this happened, it is highly unlikely now that it will be believed.

The employer has little reason to place trust in her now, so unless someone admitted it, why should they take her word above others who they have no evidence to suggest they have ever mislead the employer?

It will be seen as a smokescreen.

As for the former manager, I can't see that the police are likely to do anything.

Like it or not, her version of events at her former employers is "not true"

- she was disciplined and dismissed, and that is the "true record of events".

Her former manager told her employer true facts.

There is no law against doing that.

You may call it harassment or a disability hate crime, but there is no evidence that it is either.

But this still all comes down to one basic question

- if the employer decide to dismiss her,

are they dismissing her for a reason related to her disability?

The answer to that is no.

After that it doesn't matter why they dismiss her

- they could dislike the colour of her hair or her postcode.

So she has no unfair dismissal claim.

Manager made call to new employer without permission of their employer[/Quote]

 

 

How did you establish that it was done without permission?

 

You don't state what your friend's position is/was, or the given reason for dismissal, but there are some specific responsibilities around references provided within financial services, not least that there is a responsibility on the part of a previous employer to update a reference where information regarding disciplinary action or misconduct becomes apparent after the employee has left that employer's business.

 

 

Thus, is it not possible that whatever the real or perceived motivation, the act of informing a new employer of information not previously disclosed could be argued as being a regulatory requirement?

For the main part I agree Sangie.

But you may be mistaken on two counts. largely bcos you are not familiar with all the facts.

1) You state ... "She knew she had been asked this question, and knew she had been subsequently dismissed and still said nothing". After she had ticked a box in app'n form whch asked if she had ever been dismissed from work, which at time was true, then there is no implied duty in law to disclose events that transpired thereafter .... a ruling that has survived for some 90 years - http://swarb.co.uk/bell-v-lever-brothers-ltd-hl-15-dec-1931/

2) You also ask .... "And, to be blunt, unless she raised her grievance about the other incidents before all this happened, it is highly unlikely now that it will be believed. " She did raise her grievance before all this happened. The alleged misconduct was put forward the day after she raised the grievance.

The Police are taking the matter seriously, and have already agreed that a criminal harassment warning is necessary, but may be taking it further.

For the main part I agree Sangie.

 

But you may be mistaken on two counts. largely bcos you are not familiar with all the facts. Nobody can reply based on anything except the extant facts

 

1) You state ... "She knew she had been asked this question, and knew she had been subsequently dismissed and still said nothing". After she had ticked a box in app'n form whch asked if she had ever been dismissed from work, which at time was true, then there is no implied duty in law to disclose events that transpired thereafter .... a ruling that has survived for some 90 years - http://swarb.co.uk/bell-v-lever-brothers-ltd-hl-15-dec-1931/

 

Yes, that is the case.

But she knew that she would be or could be facing disciplinary charges, and she also knew that her suspension was the result of a disciplinary investigation.

It is all semantics.

It can just as easily be argued that the disciplinary case starts from the point at which she is informed that she is under investigation.

It is all a matter of semantics.

And irrelevant semantics because this is still nothing to do with any of the exceptions to the two year rule.

It is certainly not discrimination, and I am confident that no tribunal would consider it so.

This is what would happen to anyone in this situation.

So the entire argument is semantics

- they can dismiss her because they want to, if that is the best reason they come up with.

They are not obliged to give, or even have, a reason for dismissing her.

 

2) You also ask .... "And, to be blunt, unless she raised her grievance about the other incidents before all this happened, it is highly unlikely now that it will be believed. "

She did raise her grievance before all this happened.

The alleged misconduct was put forward the day after she raised the grievance.

 

But it still has nothing to do with the alleged misconduct of staff members. It arises from information provided that has nothing to do with that.

 

The Police are taking the matter seriously, and have already agreed that a criminal harassment warning is necessary, but may be taking it further.

 

They can only give a warning if the person agrees to accept it.

And if the manager has anything about them they will get a lawyer who will tell them not to accept it.

 

And if that happens the police will be forced to drop it by the CPS

- there is no harassment and no hate crime.

 

The manager notified a new employer that their former employee had been dismissed.

A truthful statement, and something which anyone can do.

You can do it and I can do it.

That is not the legal definition of harassment and nor is it the legal definition of a hate crime.

And,

as Sidewinder rightly points out,

may, in fact, be a legal requirement given the nature of the employers (you mentioned vetting, so that suggests a higher level of security checking).

Therefore, even if their employer didn't know they had done it, it could, in fact, be classed as whistleblowing.

I think the crux of the matter here is that the water is being muddied by lots of other points.

Has she been directly or indirectly discriminated against by her current employer? No.

They therefore do not need any reason to dismiss, and if they give a reason it is still irrelevant because they cannot face proceedings for unfair dismissal - fair or not in anyone else's mind.

One other point is that

I would not be surprised if, somewhere in the small print that nobody ever reads,

there actually IS a requirement on employees to inform their employer in the event of something relevant to their ongoing employment happens. It's quite common.

And I know of at least one bank that includes this in the contractual terms.

I'm also just wondering, Belinda - or is it "Phil"

- why a lawyer specialising in disability discrimination is asking anonymous posters on a website about a case of this type - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=65207141.

I would know this because you have an almost identical post elsewhere on the same site - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589581#topofpage

I am particularly interested in your response at #20 where you say

"Don't ordinarily condone using levers for justice, but when in a corner, use whatever ammunition is avaialble to you"

- in other words, you admit that no disability discrimination has occurred from the new employer, but play the card anyway.

As someone with severe disabilities I find that disgusting.

People have to fight hard for the right to be treated equally.

Passing a law doesn't make it so.

And it is this kind of transparent abuse of disability that makes it harder for all the rest of us.

If she wishes to be treated equally, then I am afraid that she has to take responsibility for her own decisions and actions.

And that includes the fact that because she didn't disclose it she now faces a possible dismissal that has absolutely nothing to do with her disability.

Being disabled doesn't make you special, and it doesn't put you above everyone else either!

Thx for further feedback Sangie.

The principal act of discrimination occurred in her former employment and she will now pursue that via ET and will also clear her name re unfair dismissal , but as a breach of contract in County Court. No fees will be incurred upfront as she is entitled to an EX160 waiver.

Acknowledge concerns re possible abuse of disability law, but I have no quarms about that because it is not an abuse, and you do not know all the extant facts, correct name of employers etc .

Re the "late" reference ; for the umpteenth time i reiterate that this was done as an act of victimisation, and without the knowledge or consent of their employer. I understand ex Manager is now suspended.

FYI, friend has been told by Met that to date harassment warning has been given to ex-Manager, AND accepted.

Will update you next week re what unfurls.

I'm also just wondering, Belinda - or is it "Phil" - why a lawyer specialising in disability discrimination is asking anonymous posters on a website about a case of this type - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=65207141. I would know this because you have an almost identical post elsewhere on the same site - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589581#topofpage

 

I am particularly interested in your response at #20 where you say "Don't ordinarily condone using levers for justice, but when in a corner, use whatever ammunition is avaialble to you" - in other words, you admit that no disability discrimination has occurred from the new employer, but play the card anyway. As someone with severe disabilities I find that disgusting. People have to fight hard for the right to be treated equally. Passing a law doesn't make it so. And it is this kind of transparent abuse of disability that makes it harder for all the rest of us. If she wishes to be treated equally, then I am afraid that she has to take responsibility for her own decisions and actions. And that includes the fact that because she didn't disclose it she now faces a possible dismissal that has absolutely nothing to do with her disability. Being disabled doesn't make you special, and it doesn't put you above everyone else either!

Oh dear

I see much on the MSE thread which disappoints me greatly

Acknowledge concerns re possible abuse of disablity law, but I have no quarms about that[/Quote]

 

Or qualms? Whatever. If, as alleged this is the statement of an employment lawyer then that is quite frankly disturbing, and brings the profession into disrepute

 

Watching carefully

Watch as much as you want - you do not know all the relevant facts.

Simply fishing, and will update once the actual facts can be revealed.

Apologies for typo.

So having no qualms about abusing disability law? That is a fact, or not?

Oh dear

 

I see much on the MSE thread which disappoints me greatly

 

Or qualms? Whatever. If, as alleged this is the statement of an employment lawyer then that is quite frankly disturbing, and brings the profession into disrepute

 

Watching carefully

There's an "unmasking history" on MSE where this person claims to be a lawyer,

gets trounced,

and disappears for a time until he or she thinks everyone forgot.

I didn't realise that it was the same person when I originally posted,

but the amount of detail they claim to know is beyond what is credible.

I wouldn't believe anything they now post on this matter.

It's ready to claim you won something.

Hard to prove.

And I'd go back to the point

- why is an experienced lawyer masquerading as a common or garden poster to get advice on a supposed claim?

I do hope his "friend" is not as gullible as he thinks some of us are.

I used to post on MSE but left after being sanctioned for two weeks for saying someone was

- this person having said that the MP who was murdered deserved it because she helped immigrants.

I got sanctioned but the MSE team did nothing about a post that had been on the site for six weeks!

I have nothing to hide about any of this

- I would say it again, and it was true.

I refused to go back to a site that permits racism and intolerance, but bans people who call them out on it.

But it's often useful to skim other sites because, as in this instance, people have a tendency to forget that giving out different versions on other sites can be noticed.

I knew there was a thread that I had replied to at some point recently, I just couldn't recall when or where it was.

Also very enlightening about this "lawyer"

- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5484485#topofpage

In this version of reality he is still a lawyer but championing people signing up to a paid for site for advice by claiming benefit wins but refusing to disclose any information unless people sign up to this other site.

Very interesting.

He claims to be a "lawyer" but not a solicitor or Barrister.

An unqualified paralegal or fee earner with ideas above their station maybe?

Hi all. Just a quick update ..

.. and a response to the trolling abuse which has now appeared to sidetrack this thread.

Update

- The facts in the post were based on a merely hypothetical scenario in order to protect various parties.

The Police are now thankfully involved and progress is being made.

The disability issue was a red herring;

the friend is actually a person who has encountered sexual harassment and bullying issues.

[removed] -dx are not the employer;

I picked them because I bank with them, and they are in fact a good bank.

My friend's former and new employer are in fact nothing to do with the banking sector, more related to the rather unsavoury world of money lending.

will fill in more details in due course re the outcome of the allegations.

Sangie's allegation re me championing people to join a "paid site" re benefits advice is interesting.

Excellent MSE members make routine and positive references to the very same "paid site", the subscription cost of which can in any event be as low as 28p per week .

The "paid site" also provides superb benefits guides to paid up members.

There has been no trolling and no abuse, except by you, who have now admitted that your entire account is fictional.

The person you refer to does not claim to be a lawyer, and she does not post saying that she will only disclose information if someone signs up to another site that must be paid for. She is a respected advisor on MSE. You are not.

Whenever you get caught trolling your response is always to claim that you are the innocent victim of a conspiracy by others.

Please! You are a legal wanna-be who wants to appear as some sort of genius.

News flash - claiming to be a lawyer when it is abundantly clear that you are anything but, making up false stories, wasting peoples time with lies... that is trolling.

Please can we keep to the thread topic in hand...if there are any more personal exchanges the thread will be temporarily closed.

Regards

Andy

Please can we keep to the thread topic in hand...if there are any more personal exchanges the thread will be temporarily closed.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Thank you Andyorch - well said.

Right back to the thread.

Spoke to a barrister and ACAS today. Both agreed that it can be a grey area re whether a job applicant who is under "investigation" by their current employer (i.e. a pre-cursor to possible disciplinary action) should inform a prospective new employer of such information. There is no duty to inform once the new job has commenced as per the case of Bell v Lever Bros. It so happens that my friend only found out that she was dismissed from her old job, three weeks ! after leaving her former employment when she received a letter in the post notifying her of their decision.

The barrister is going to explore whether there is any case law in respect of the use of pre-employment questionnairresand the duty to inform a prospective employer re an ongoing "investigation" as distinct to full blown didciplinary action.

Thank you Andyorch - well said.

 

Right back to the thread.

 

Spoke to a barrister and ACAS today. Both agreed that it can be a grey area re whether a job applicant who is under "investigation" by their current employer (i.e. a pre-cursor to possible disciplinary action) should inform a prospective new employer of such information. There is no duty to inform once the new job has commenced as per the case of Bell v Lever Bros. It so happens that my friend only found out that she was dismissed from her old job, three weeks ! after leaving her former employment when she received a letter in the post notifying her of their decision.

 

The barrister is going to explore whether there is any case law in respect of the use of pre-employment questionnairresand the duty to inform a prospective employer re an ongoing "investigation" as distinct to full blown didciplinary action.

Erm... thanks?

Are you still wanting help or are you just telling us what is happening?

Just informing you, and agreeing with AndyOrch re abusive members reeling in their necks ..... Sangie being a poignant example.

This is very confusing as you claim to be a qualified "lawyer" (whatever that means) and you have a Barrister helping you with the case so I don't understand why you need our help?!

Thread again descending into personal jibes - irrelevant posts removed and thread closed unless the OP has anything constructive to add, in which case please contact Admin