Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


2 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. If you read my reply properly I did say '...abusive etc at a works outing' which to my mind doesn't include running red lights on the way home. Being drunk and abusive (for example) at a works outing will very probably land you in disciplinary trouble. But it was you who actually gave being a member of the Klu Klux Klan as an example of something you couldnt be sacked for!! I was simply pointing out that you can be sacked for having views such as those. Sorry, godpikachu, but please dont take it personally. It doesnt really matter to me who posted it and I cant say that I even bothered looking. Just because I didnt agree with your reply and didnt mention you by name is really neither here nor there. Sorry if it upset you though.
  2. I think the point being made by chesham is that, although suspended, the OP is still an employee and subject to everything in his or her contract. And, yes, the OP poster could all too easily bring the company in to disrepute whilst off work due to suspension or any other reason - think about if he/she wrote derogatory things about the company on this Forum or on Facebook etc. It would only be polite to ask if it was ok to go away for a while whilst being paid by the company. Being confrontational and awkward (and quoting the Human Rights Act) will probably do you no favours at all.
  3. Whilst it's not 100% clear, i would take the phrase 'non customer related social events away from the casino premises' to mean works outings etc. In those circumstances the company can certainly dictate how you should behave etc and they can discipline you if you bring the company in to disrepute by bad behavior. There have been numerous cases of companies being held to blame because their employees behaved unprofessionally outside work hours, such as at company outings etc. I would regard this as a preemptive warning (albeit badly worded) about behavior outside work. I also can't see it being classed as unfair dismissal, as someone states, if an employee is drunk, abusive etc at a works outing and is disciplined and dismissed because of it. It's also a fact that employees have been dismissed (fairly) for things they do in their private lives seemingly unconnected with work. So for one of the replies above to say 'they cant do or say a damn thing about it' (and in particular the the ku klux klan comment) is untrue as well I'm afraid (as several BNP members have found out to their cost). I think they could have made the clauses clearer, but the point is that if something you do reflects badly on the company then they will be within their rights to do something about it.
  4. I do have a recollection of reading about a case being allowed that was out of time, but cant remember the details and I cant look it up at present, sorry! Not much help I'm afraid. I think in your position I'd be looking to get legal advice. I can understand you wanting to represent yourself but I think it may be false economy. See if any of your business insurances cover you for legal costs. There's a lot of decent people on here but the slant is usually from the employee's perspective and I feel you might struggle to get a definitive answer as an employer. Good luck though as I know from experience how easy it is for (ex)employees to bring spurious claims which can cost you a lot of time and money - especially for small businesses.
  5. Is there another post concerning this because the question and replies here seem to assume that we all know what these questions are that you want answered (and that the company have something to hide and are in the wrong by not answering them). Unless I've missed something in another post, wouldnt it be better to find out exactly what these questions are before jumping to the conclusion that a) they must be answered, and b) that the company are hiding something by not answering? Just going by what's written in your posts here I can't see why there's talk about discrimination either? Discrimination against who? About what? There's been no mention of religion, pregnancy, race, disability (you'd need a lot longer off work than 2 months to have stress classified as a disability). But....I've obviously missed something either in this post or another.
  6. I know you say the deposit is £2400 but can you confirm how much the rent is as it must be getting close to the amount where your tenancy is no longer an AST and the DPS wouldnt apply.
  7. If you pay on the 29th of each month you'll be paying on 28th February for the month up until you leave on 28 March.
  8. 1. You can put your notice in and leave any time you like. You wont get fired for putting your notice in and you'll be paid up until your leaving date. 2. They can give you a good reference, they can also give you a poor reference. Your warning is possibly going to be mentioned if asked. 3. Your employer will (hopefully) tell the truth about you. Whether this is bad or good depends on your performance doesnt it? 4. You'll get a P45 on the day you leave or to follow on afterwards. 5. I think a warning was fair in the circumstances you describe.
  9. Hold on....discrimination based on what? That a person in an office has more holidays than another person? You'd need to look at whether it's age discrimination, discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, disability etc. It can't just be discrimination because one person earns more, has more holidays, has better company perks etc etc than someone else. You always get this in offices - other staff thinking that a person gets better treatment because theyre a friend (or whatever) of the boss. In most cases it unfounded but even if it were true you'd have to prove it and prove it was discriminatory on some grounds. It's not discriminatory just because someone earns more or has more holidays.
  10. I think it would depend somewhat on what you mean by 'rude office banter'. Is it something that someone might find offensive or just gossip?
  11. I'm a bit confused as to which job you say you didnt want because it was full time. Was there only one job available and you turned it down? If that's the case I cant see the problem as you didnt want the job - unless there was an opportunity to only do it as a part time job. If Ive misunderstood can you explain a bit more as to what was offered and what you turned down please?
  12. Looking at it from a slightly different angle, is it better to accept a 10% pay cut rather than have redundancies? Leaving aside whether they should have consulted more, I know which I'd go for if the company needs to cut costs. I'd try and negotiate that this was a temporary reduction to help the company through a bad period rather than a permanent cut in wages though.
  13. Does it say in your letter of confirmation or contract that you will work, for instance, Monday evening, Tuesday evening and all day Saturday? Or does it simply say x hours per week?
  14. You don't always get pay in lieu of notice, some employers insist that the employee works the notice period even in a redundancy situation. I've known this happen a few times recently.
  15. But that's only one part of the equation isn't it? Depends on the cost of living in the country youre comparing the UK with. I haven't looked it up but I have it in my mind that Sweden is very expensive so, although the salary may sound high, it may need to be to allow for the cost of living.
  • Create New...