Jump to content

Giggins

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Giggins

  1. Hmmm.. I am of the opinion, that your friend has every right to see all the evidence against him, including the witness statements, when he is called back into work to give his/her side of the story. In the case of Spink -v- Express Foods Limited [1990] IRLR 320 it was held: "It is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary procedure that an employee know the case against him. Fairness requires that someone accused should know the case to be met; should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in support of that case; should have an opportunity to criticise or dispute
  2. I am of the opinion as is elpulpo & Sidewinder. It is a civil matter.....
  3. It appears to me that your are being shown the door, and you have to make a decision about what to do. You know your situation better than anybody. You have to decide whether to invoke the grievance procedure, and whether it could make things worse. I would read through the pages on "breach of contract" edited and see if anything is relevant to your circumstances, which you could use. It may help - it may not. Kind regards - Giggins
  4. I can understand how your manager may have felt, given that you were 'using' your cellphone whilst he was talking. However, his/her actions in engaging other employees to spy on you, may amount to a breach of the mutual trust and confidence. EDIT. Your employer should not 'instruct or engage' other 'ordinary employees' to furnish information, with regards to your person, work, or performance. It is my opinion that management have taken this too far, and are 'acting in a manner which is very likely to destroy' the mutual trust and confidence. Further, under the auspices of the DP
  5. Miltonguyphil - My opinion is that sidewinder is right on the money. It is what is "reasonable". From what you have said, I believe the hours are [unreasonable] given the fact they run over virtually all the time.
  6. No, but be careful you don't breach the mutual trust and confidence.
  7. Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT v Grey (IDS 875) The duty to make adjustments does not apply if the employer does not know, and could not be reasonably expected to know, that the employee has a disability and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage.
  8. I am of the opinion, that this may amount to yet another case of a "breach of the mutual trust and confidence." Malik v BCCI 1997 IRLR "An employer shall not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee." Morrow v Safeway Stores [2002] IRLR 9 The EAT holds that "any breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence will inevitably be repudiatory, entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal." I am not suggesting you
  9. I am of the [opinion] that this "unwanted conduct" amounts to a breach of the "mutual trust and confidence" and therefore agree with BankFodder. Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 "The employer sall not conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the mutual trust and confidence". The case of Morrow v Safeway Stores plc [2002] IRLR 9 is very much the same as yours, whereas a boss gave an employee a ticking off in front of other employees. (google it). In this case, the EAT overruled the Tribunal, and held that "any breach of
  10. This may have no bearing. However, if your friend has a disability, and has been late for work due to his/her "impairment", it may be that the employer needed to take this into account - viz, by way of making a "reasonable adjustment". There are a few cases where employees' have been late for work (Dickens -v- O2) due to the excessive demands of the job, and the very fact that the employee is unable to cope with the demands of the job. As such, it is incumbent upon the employer (duty of care) to take reasonable and practicable steps to discover whether reason/s exist (which it migh
  11. Nicklea - it is evident from the subsequent posts this user has submitted on this thread, that s/he believes the manager in question does in fact have an ulterior motive - and as such, the aggrieved employee fully intends to invoke the grievance procedure, as I have suggested. "Thank you I definitely want to do a SAR as I'm convinced an ulterior motive is absolutely behind this." Therefore, I stand by my post, and what is stated within it - that the information is justified and accurate, not as you aver.....
  12. A few points come to mind. 1. I very much doubt the "mutual trust and confidence" is applicable here, and or applies, as you were not at work during the material time you were seen out on the town. It is my opinion that the mutual trust does not apply as your employer avers, as these events did not occur during the "course of your employment" and took place after 'working hours'. 2. I believe you employer is not acting in "good faith". In the case of Spink -v- Express Foods Limited [1990] IRLR 320 it was held: "It is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary procedure that an em
  13. I fully agree with what papasmurf1cx has stated. The fact that you were unable to come into work due to your finances would not (in my opinion) amount to a discriminatory practise by the employer. However, it is obvious this manageress has little understanding of your "mental impairment". I would put in writing to her that the next time she wants a meeting with you, that you are given "reasonable" notice prior to any meeting taking place. Further, it sounds to me like she is covering the company's liability issue, with regard to your impairment, by placing in writing that the
  14. I am not sure that your boss keeping a diary amounts to a contravention of the DPA 1998. I would contact the ICO on 0303 123 1113 - the ICO deal with breaches of the DPA 1998 and would be in a good position to give you a definitive answer. However, I can say that you are legally entitled to see all information, which your employer keeps on you. A request in writing from yourself would mean your employer would have to provide the information within 40 days. However, the fact your boss is keeping a diary in written form suggests an ulterior motive, and induces the opinion it is going
  15. These guys are right - your boss/employer should not be making contact with you whilst you are signed off from work as "un-fit" due to work-related stress. I would be inclined to record any further requests by your boss on your mobile phone, in the event you need to establish he called you at some later point of time, viz: Tribunal.
  16. First: I would be inclined to get a copy of the "RIDDOR" report which your employer would needed to have lodged with the local Environmental Health Dept. Contact your local Council, and obtain this report. The employer would needed to have stated the reason/s why you were "sick" from work. It is possible the RIDDOR report may shed some light on your employer's liability or culpability with regard to this "incident". Use their own words against them. Secondly: The employer is legally obligated to provide you with a "safe place and system of work". This means the employer is obligated to un
  17. Every contract of employment has an "implied term" that the employer "shall not conduct itself in a manner, 'calculated or likely to destroy' the 'mutual trust and confidence' between employer and employee without reasonable cause." Likewise, as an employee, you have to observe the "implied terms" within the contract of employment. Fiduciary duties do not usually apply to "ordinary employees". However, if you held a position of "trust" within your organisation (manager, director, supervisor), and you breached your employer's "confidence" by sharing information with third parties, it coul
  18. Further to the previous post, I would suggest that what you state to your employer is (i) placed in writing and (ii) sent via email. This way you can prove the date and time you notified your employer of your impairment. Remember, the employer is obligated to take what you tell it at "face value", and should undertake a "risk assessment" to assess the "risk of harm" to either your "health" or "safety".
  19. The fact you have made a claim for personal injury in no way diminishes the employers "duty of care" to you. Based on what you have elucidated, I would say that your back problem amounts to having a "physical impairment" which very likely falls under the auspices of the Equality Act 2010. The impact of your impairment has an "adverse effect" on your ability to perform your "day to day activities" which is palpable. Further, the effects of your impairment have lasted longer than 12 months. The employer has a "duty of care" to make a "reasonable adjustment" when it has "constructive knowle
  20. I would tread very carefully here if I were you. Your employer cannot sack you for invoking the grievance procedure, as long as you are acting in "good faith". However, I would say the conduct you complain of does not warrant lodging a written formal grievance. Further, the conduct which you complain of does not tie in with having a "protected characteristic" and would not meet the definition of "harassment". I would make all efforts to put this into prospective, and realise that it is no more than a spat. In this economic climate, you do not want to find yourself unemployed.
  21. Both the employer and employer have a "duty of care" to observe the "mutual trust and confidence" and not act in a manner, which is likely to destroy, or seriously damage that trust and confidence. Anything in writing which the employer can use to draw inference against you, could potentially amount to a breach of the mutual trust and confidence, with express particular, where fiduciary duties exist, for you to act in "good faith".
  22. I refer to the case of Nottingham County Council v Meikle (2004 IRLR 703 CA) “A duty to make reasonable adjustments can include a duty to consider paying employees' full pay during sickness absence regardless of their contractual sick pay entitlements.”
×
×
  • Create New...