Jump to content

meekmeek

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by meekmeek

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. (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
  14. 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
  15. if your contract is hourly based wage and not a salery [zero hour contract] then this means 3 things 1. you get an extra hour in bed in the morning 2. you do the prep work during work time causing delays in delivery - thus causing customer complaints 3. when you do get the overtime eventually paid would it be more then £7-30 an hour it might be worth emphasising that his sudden wage change will affect 1. customer satisfaction where newsagents may find other delivery agents - thus losing business 2. when overtime eventually paid the costs of paying an hour after shift is not as economical as before the shift 3. the posibility of losing experienced staff and having to waste resources and training new workers - teaching them the journeys and processes will also impact the business but this is just a idea feel free to ignore
  16. spondy atleast you also exhausted all avenues just to try and keep yourself employed. but i am afraid that giving you a redundancy notice is the only last solution. i would however still keep communications with the boss polite and hospitable as showing willingness to try anything and already knowing the business gives you better chances in future what i mean to say is that maybe in a year or few months a job opertunity that does tick all the boxes may pop up and your boss would consider you first before someone fresh to the business as you already know how the business functions - you know the business plan and would end up saving the company both time and money by not requiring to train the "freshface" if they chose you instead. so keep things amicable and concentrate on your health and well being good luck with whatever the future may bring you - just be sure the boss gives you a fair notice of employment termination and that the reason are due to health not being suitable for the business - as when health may improve they have no reason not to welcome you back with open arms if a position pops up
  17. i suspect the contract is for 40-50 hours and there is a verbal agreement to have a set 10-18 hours a week overtime [verbally guaranteeing him to 1 or 2 extra shifts] whether the incident happened at home, during out of hours [casual job], or even while eg skydiving lol [meaning nothing related to work at all] you are still entitled to sickpay. this may however just be standard government sickpay but ask friend for the terms of the business sickpay as it seems weird that they would only pay work sickpay if you became ill during normal work time. for instance treat his foot injury the same as someone that gets "man-bird flue" where its unrelated to work would he be entitled to work based sickpay. the personal injury claim would be a little harder to achieve if the incident happened in a non contractual period on a day he was not required to work - although the company is still responsible if they allowed him out on patrol duties and paid him for the day of the incident. what i mean to say is a personal injury claim is hard to win if he went into work on a day off and tripped over a step as in the companies eyes he should not have been there and so employer responsibility is lowered especially adding the fact that by patroling means it is off site then health and safety case is weaker as the employer has no control or responsability of public traffic. one thing that may help though - does the company have metal-steal toe capped boots as part of the uniform and did your friend wear these hope this might give you a few more things to think about
  18. after working there for 6 years you probably got a good idea of all the departments of the company and know a few of the employees in each department putting the vacencies they are offering aside and your skill level aside have you got a list of what jobs that you would be suitable to do healthwise. what i am trying to say is accepting any job that does not cause health issues is better emotionally and financially then living on basic income support. even if it is to be a secretary for the boss where you get the balance of sitting down and freedom to walk around when sitting becomes an issue. so think about ALL of the job roles in the business that wont harm your health as its better to take a low pay unskilled job being a simple desk jocky then to sit at home still not using your skills. show this list of acceptable jobs as it may be that they only searching for vacencies for a certain job role or pay bracket. but showing willingness to accept a lower skilled - pay bracket job may open more job possibilities the business had not thought of. if not then i hope your health improves and you have luck with employment with another company in the future. desk jocky [workstation] jobs are normally best as although you are sat down workers get the freedom to stand up and walk to the toilet - canteen - photocopier for a bit of exercise which would ease the pain and all the boss would need to do is offer a 5 minute per hour break as a reasonable adjustment which you may not require if you get to walk around the office for passing on memos, photocopying or just getting the boss a cup of coffee. just make a list of suitable jobs based on health only forget pay forget skills as anything is better then income support. once the list of possible jobs are listed then work out what hours you would need to do to get the bills paid and still not affect your health - but be ruthless DONT add on £1 to cover luxurys just work out the food rent-mortgage and utility costs. this will then give you a better idea of where you stand with current employer or with future employers as to what the minimum requirements are acceptable to you. some people when in a skilled job get used to the luxery lifestyle of their high pay but things will change if you become unemployed so seriously think about the minimum standards you would consider hope this helps
  19. i understand sidewinder but presumptions have been made without questions being asked and without reading what is put. then they got defencive when i tried to explain their presumptions were inaccurate and that they have misinterpreted my laymans language i do not find it helpful that a normal person has to learn solicitor language just to seek advice it is far easier for the solicitor to learn or translate their solicitor speak into laymans english e.g i would not want to have to go to a doctor and have to know all the medical abbreviations prior to getting a diagnoses its for the doctor to interpret by asking questions what i mean by what i say ie if i had a pain in my chest the presumption would be heart and lung issues - but a doctor would also ask about have i been stabbed punched or hit anything incase the pain is rib - muscle based i do have paper proof of insults and the interview notes and the transcripts of the disciplinaries but the advisers called me a liar saying i made them up. i would hate to have it where anyone verbally told seral a discriminatory remark again verbally as he would not have a leg to stand on in court - because he believes that paper proof is not enough in his eyes for a case. so verbal is even less chance as its hear say. but hey if a employee only has a chance in tribunal - then i aint gonna go through another month of stress just to be sacked [replace sacked with own legal jargon for employment termination] all i ever wanted to know was without starting up a new case how could i make the best out of the current situation. all i got in return was wait and see what happens [not verbatim] you dont have a case [although investigations were continuing] put it this way i have resigned so in the employers eyes all their i and t should be dotted as i am not employed by them which is what they wanted so why are they offering me the job back if it was clear in my resignation letter why i left in the first place. so there must be a case to answer to or the result of their own investigations after my resignation would have been that there is no evidence of any wrong doing so goodluck with future job prospect yes that is a presumption as the actual answer they gave was to offer job back now again ill say it why after resigning would a company start investigations and then offer job back. but seral is right on the last point - this thread is exhausted i have given up seeking advice because i did not pass high street solicitors question about date of resignation for a tribunal assessments and i did not pass serals language requirements to get a fair answer i asked questions about vento bandings - no actual reply - just tribunal timescale waffle i asked questions about if he put his head into my situation or a situation [where he is insulted and accused of stealing a encyclopedia of law and the stress caused him to resign and be bed ridden for 3 months] what he would do - again no reply so there is nothing that can be done - i am not returning to work to go through stress again just for them to dot and cross there i and t and leave me yet again in a unemployed state and depressed all over again it will achieve nothing in terms of my health all i wanted to do was to make the most of a situation which started all on its own - i dont want to provoke anything with employer - so i am out - line drawn in the sand [i only said about possibilities of civil case - incase i wanted to file something in future - not that i am currently wanting to or that i intend to - just a possibility] but sarel presumed without question that my intention is to provoke trouble for financial gain. again i dont want to provoke anything i just wanted to make the most out of a situation that presented itself but hey lets close the thread end it all i have not achieved much support just accusations and presumptions and wait and see's thanks for the advice when it was given - i truly and genuinely did take in all the points raised but the presumptions and accusations made to avoid answering other questions has left me without the answers and too late to do anything about so goodbye - close thread
  20. ACAS guidelines are simply as long as theres an investigation which leads to a disciplinary which leads to a end of employment then all the boxes are ticked its not hard for a grimreeper of an employer to make a false accusation to start the ball rolling and their internal manager colleagues to 1 do the investigation and a second manager to then do the disciplinary hearing and in both cases word the questions in a way that evidance for defence gets ignored acas dont care about the evidance [of the issues - accusations raised] just the ladder of investigation followed by disciplinary followed by notice of termination the only true defense an employee has is a tribunal which has a time limit and soon a price tag attached the majority of serial grimreeper employers are in supermarkets and multinationals where their defense for keep having their name appear in court is not because they are grimreepers but because of their vast size - thus they get away with continuing their grimreeper accusations just to get peoples employment terminated without huge costs no defense for the little guys who get mentally messed up by bosses actions as by the time they well enough to deal with issues its too late and they cant afford it good old england - someone make a time machine and go get robin hood and put him as prime minister - i think he will do a better job at helping out the economy and care about the working class more then current government anyone know of a mythical or hystoric figure that is oposite to robin hood - [steal from the rich, give to the poor] and sorry gordon brown and cameron are options already taken lol
  21. sarel using the words making up what other say is saying that i am lying about what they said stop with the legal verbatim stuff - get your head out of the legal box and then put your legal experiences into the body and mind of a normal working class person who needs advise everyone knows that employers can find things to accuse employees of that is unfounded so if there is no way to defend self at the investigation stage if they only accusing you as a attempt to progress the ACAS procedure for dismissal and not actually care if you are innocent or guilty - just go through the motions to progress it up to to dismissal then there is no point anyone asking for advice while employed like i said its best to just say go through with the disciplinarys and file a tribunal when sacked sacked is a laymans term meaning dismissed - made redundant - loss or employment yes in verbatim you did not use the word sacked but in laymans conversations you did mention words to the effect of loss of employment - so dont argue about my use of words simply because i did not use proper solicitor jargon if i knew all the jargon i would not be trying to seek advise - ok now to the last post i posted - ok so you imagined my situation where theres been 9 months of insults and disciplinarys which EMOTIONALLY feel like the manager tells you to go jump off a bridge - but in a closer more realistic light is like the manager asking you to remove or cover up a facial disfigurement - you resigned due to depression and stress and to keep reputation up as you know the boss is a METAPHORICAL grimreeper of employment that no matter how much evidence you brought forward they would still sack [again replace sack with whatever word you want] you you would actually return to work to go through a month of 3 disciplinaries knowing the end result so thats the only option you would follow - to tell the boss to shove the job offer up their bum or take it back you would not personally represent yourself in a civil court if you had the memos and interview notes in your hand well thanks at least the i and t are dotted and crossed i guess tribunals are the only route to fight back the only true defence any employee has employers can call up incidences as far back as over a year to aid their investigations - but workers only have a short period of 3 months between end of employment to truly have some defence this is a bad country in relation to employee rights - employers can accuse anything to start a ball rolling and the only defence a worker has against nasty companies is a 3 month time limit AFTER employment ends. guess thats why these nasty bosses want to depress their staff before pushing them into unemployment so by the time the ex worker if mentally fit - its too late rediculus - oh well i gonna burn all the transcripts - interview notes and memos as i am not returning there and so the insults on the paper are useless no need to reply - i moving on - bye
  22. saying i have made up evidance - i can quote you saying i have made up what people have said to me that in laymans terms is calling me a liar!! just because i do not use legal jargon and quote things as verbatim does not make them false you need to step outside of your law book walk away from your solicitor colleagues and start talking to the normal everyday working class guys and girls eg when i say 0% = none - no chance - no case - nothing to declare - not worth persuing just because you did not use the numeric 0 followed by a percentage symbol does not mean that you never told me that i had no chance no case [you choose a word that means the equivelant] i am a human being so yes i dont speak verbatim robotic legal jargon - it may help you to realise the working class that seek your advice dont speak your language or they would not require your assistance so rather then trying to accuse people of making things up - try translating laymans into solicitor speak a little better or ask a question if unsure you have based your statements only on what has been read and then presumed the rest - i have mentioned many times about the other legal guys just doing a date check on a tribunal case to say no chance - and you too even this week have not looked at the FACTS that i have paper proof of insults to offer advice but hey your here to look good - speak a little legal jargon which from reading many other posts translates into laymans to mean "well follow through with disciplinaries and if the result is negative then file for a tribunal asap" time and time again i have not seen you offer advice on how to stop a disciplinary from even occuring nor offer anyone advice on how to word the story of others in a way to stop a investigation from occuring just write this as your post then have it ready to copy and paste as it seems like the only answer you feel happy to give any poster "you have not been found guilty of any such event - it is the companies right to seek answers to a accusation they have made and it is your right to defend yourself - so go through with it and take someone with you. if the outcome is negative you can file an appeal or grievance - if these result negatively resulting in" [you choose word which i would say is sacked but u may call dismissal] " you can file for a unfair-constructive dismissal case in tribunal" try to imagine your boss treated you like what some of these posters get treated like imagine your boss gave you daily memos saying your ugly - fat - old - dumb - smelly - homo and said to sort it out then disciplined you because you have failed to follow manager guidelines to sort out you age -disability - sexuality then put you through another disciplinary process 3 colleagues went through where your accused of stealing a encyclopedia of law because its not in the building knowing that your not incharge of deliveries or the buildings librarian who does stock checks - why else would they link your name to a missing item then with depression you decide you have to resign for health reasons but also to keep your reputation up. your depression gets the best of you for 3 months where you just sleep like a hibernating bear for 3 months and then you gradually get your mind back into action so you now have a year of insults on paper in your hand and disciplinarys saying you have recieved a warning that you did not follow guidelines to sort out your disability - age - or sexuality as it does not project a professional image now what would you do- honestly put yourself in this scenario please the only reply i want to hear is the situation-scenario walk away or what?
  23. i have listened to everything you have said but you have repeated time and time again that you basing the assumption that i have 0% chance of anything based on the fact of the results of what other legal aid and solicitors i had visited. so here we go again those guys i visited did not even get to hear my account of what happened or read the memos or read the interview transcripts at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they simply done a how long ago did you resign - oh its too late to file a tribunal - and thats it. this has been .my frustration that no one was looking at the evidence they just done a tribunal assessment and stopped at the first question - hense why continually i been asking people to block out the tribunal word and read the evidence. i thank you for saying the legal jargon about that a company can sack someone [by following a proper procedure ofcourse] if the disability is causing negative impact to a business. this has been more informative then previous posts [not verbatim] "your out of time go away" but infact i do have these memos and transcripts of interviews and investigations - and they are worded with a insult [ugly, smelly, dumb] only one of the three is true but i not saying which to remain anonymous and the memo followed by comments to go home and cure it. its a disability it cant be cured - which led to the disciplinarys about failure to follow manager guidelines - again its saying i getting disciplined for failing to cure my disability. i do where a smart suite polished shoes etc the store i work dont have proper sign stock in process and stock does not arrive sometimes [store signs in boxes of stock and as long as box X arrives then the stock database is updated with what head office presumably put in box X] leaving the oppertunity for stock loss open from the guy at head office saying theres 10 items and only putting in 9 - the driver removing items or the warehouse staff and others anywhere instore taking it and the customers too there is a audit done but there is no way to link it to any member of staff so there is no proof on paper i am not a thief - but it only takes a manager to say they suspect me [as a get around to the other disciplinarys] for the company to lose faith and trust in me to then sack me this is how they sacked 3 others by saying they suspect them of theft - shown no proof of theft but by proceding with a disciplinary without proof led onto them sacking due to loss of faith and trust i simply did not want to ruin my future employment chances as with my disability alone is a sackable offence i did not want to be unable to get a job to start with due to a lie about theft leading to a meekmeek is untrustworthy reference but hey guess im stuck after working for the company for multiple years i now find that my disability offends them and that if a company can make me redundant if i affect their business - then i guess i am either to become a job hopper and just take a job for a month before they realise the mistake in taking me on - or go on benefits for life and theres nothing i can do about it if any company were to insult me as they did even on paper and not just verbally as everyone here says i got nothing!!!! cheers! all my i and t now dotted and crossed
  24. agreed just like the expenses scandal still ongoing mortgages house repairs and transportation should be paid for by their wage like everyone else many other workers commute to london everyday and only recieve a salery where as mps should be in their area 90% of the time and just travel to london 1 day a week for conferences etc they should buy a prius or a solar car if their wage doesnt fit the fuel bill the only extra cash they really deserve is a bonus for actually following through with their promises to make england better - hang on i think the bonus already exists but no single MP has ever recieved it lol wonder why lol lol lol lol id be happy to pay extra tax for a MP bonus if they actually follow through with their promises and it leads to a positive britain on the "happiness chart" lol
×
×
  • Create New...