Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About mickeyJ

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I phoned ACAS and they basically said that there is nothing in law to stop this and that if its company policy then its up to the individual to refuse on grounds of reasonableness and then go from there.
  2. Sorry HB i had to type and run. It was just an update to the original content. Emmzzi..my wife doesnt really do computers and she does her venting through me! She was given a list of the search requirement. (Not in contract) but very amateurishly typed up. I will post it later. Staff submit due to the fear of reprisals. They rely on the fact that it would mean the employee risking their job and having to go through the rigmarole of tribunals etc. As it stands ( in terms of exposing flesh) they are 'required' to show their back, stomach and now ankles and legsup to the knee.
  3. Hello all, quick bump..... They are now required to roll up their trouser leg to the knee.....
  4. Found an interesting passage..... Contractual issues Implied into every contract of employment is the term of trust and confidence. Carrying out a blanket search of all employees any time they enter or leave the building could be considered a breach of this because the employer is demonstrating a complete lack of trust in all of its employees, all of the time. Random searching of employees is less likely to fall into this trap but employers must, nevertheless, demonstrate that the searching is being carried out for objective business reasons. A further contractual issue con
  5. Basically, she is getting really upset by it but doesn't want to create any trouble. When she told me, I was livid and started researching immediately. It's easy for me though, I don't work there everyday. She also stated that alot of the employees are uncomfortable, and know it's wrong, but are afraid to say anything. I think my next port of call, is to send a letter to the head office and CC in the manager.
  6. Yes, I agree. Fortunately they are not actually touching her, but they are REQUIRING her to lift up her top herself. She feels pressurised to do so in the moment. Can they even legally require it?
  7. Thank you everyone for your input, unfortunately, I need something concrete in law that says they can't take the searching to this extreme. I can then put it before them with the knowledge that my argument has some basis in law.. New nugget of stupidity introduced today....They are now forbidden from using a mobile phone at ANY time during the day. This includes on their lunch breaks (for which they don't get paid). Obviously, I am aware that no phones are allowed on the shop floor etc etc, that goes without saying, but to threaten staff with discipline if they text or phone someone on th
  8. as a police officer, I have a working knowledge of criminal law, not the maze that is employment law and company terms and conditions. It is a complex legal field, hence why I came on here.
  9. Thank you, i did think it belonged there but couldnt work out how to get it there. Strange that a muslim employee was mentioned as there is a young muslim supervisor at the store who is back at work tomorrow.. Will be interesting to see how things work in that case. If the company change policy on the basis of religion, then that means everyone is being discriminated against.
  10. Hello all. I searched for a recent thread relating to this but could not find one, so here I go. My wife works for an established Uk retailer and has recently informed me that her manager has stated that each employee will be subject to physical body searches three times a day and that this would include the requirement to lift up ones top to expose the waistband and midrift (belly button etc), thus exposing a large area of skin. Also, trouser legs are to be rolled up and socks rolled down. I am a police officer and we are not permitted to remove a baseball cap from a detained person
  11. Hello all, i received a 2nd letter from Windsor -smythe whoever 2day saying that they now have no choice but to take this to county court.....unless i pay within 14 days. Anyone else in a similar boat?
  12. Hello Fellow haters of all things cowboy. i too today received my first letter from Windsor-Smythe & Partners, some 6 months after first contact, demanding i pay the outstanding balance or die! i had to laugh. Has any one else from ingress park noticed that 95 % of all spare spaces are VP bays, also has any one noticed that most households have two cars and one garage (If at all)? It almost feels like ur being bent over a barrel. I signed a petition back in 2007 where 90 % of the residents stated that they were discusted with the private companies, and later found out that the 'resid
  13. Yes, this is where common sense prevails!! Tickets the vans that are left all over the shop. There is a difference.
  14. Oh, we're sorry Sweedish, what parking company do you work for? are you not making ur christmas bonus. There is such a thing as common sense, something which is seriously lacking with these idiots. I live in the quietest of quiet cul-de-sacs, whereby if you left ur car neatly outside ur garage, it is not effecting anybody, or indeed in one of the 100 empty VP bays. But ur right, it is selfish to have two cars! I work 12 hour shifts, and am a law abiding, tax paying citizen. I do not deserve to be slapped with an illegal 'fine' by a bunch of money grabbing cowboys just because I put my car in o
  • Create New...