Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,202 Excellent

About sangie5952

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, for now they appear to be simply following due process. Whatever the employer, good or bad, I'd expect that. So there is nothing to do right now. I assume she has a copy of the report?
  2. Wait and see if anything comes of it first. To be honest, someone had made a complaint. The employer must investigate it. That doesn't mean they will do anything other than tick a few boxes. I'm afraid this story of thing happens a lot, and it's all about covering their backs. The fact is that unless they decide to pursue this as a case against her, there's nothing to worry about. It would be very stupid of them to do that because it actually opens up a can of worms I doubt they want opening. And treating her badly won't make her stay, will it? I might be wrong. Maybe they are stupid. But nothing had happened yet. It may not. Let's wait and see?
  3. That doesn't really change anything. There was an incident, and it was a serious one. Right now she does not know what she is accused of, if anything. So she goes to the meeting and she says that she hasn't done anything wrong. If they ask her what happened, she tells the truth. But she doesn't say anything more. You need to separate this from her handing in her resignation. That is a coincidence. An incident happened. It could have had serious outcomes. The employer is right to investigate this. That does not mean that she has done anything wrong or that she will be found guilty of anything - this is an investigation. Wait and see what happens, then come back if there is a problem.
  4. Assuming there is anything, it may be too late to get it off the premises. Bearing in mind that they would have the right to check what she is taking, and it might lead to further allegations which would be difficult to disprove. So be cautious to not take anything that could be used against her. I'd also just suggest, albeit it may not be the case, but don't get too worried yet. Being "accused" of something doesn't mean the employer believes it or will do anything about it. It's often best to worry when there's something to worry about. Hard to ignore, I know, but it won't help her any. Your are correct - if it were that serious, especially in these types of employment, I would expect an immediate suspension to prevent anyone tampering with evidence or witnesses- even if I didn't believe it to be true, I'd expect suspension to protect everyone. That's why it's important she mustn't be seen to give any hint of tampering with evidence. It seems an extreme reaction to just handing in her notice. Is there's anything more to this? Past that, at this stage, there isn't really much we can advise on. You need to tell us what the allegation is and what the employer is saying tomorrow. Then take it from there. I assume she isn't in a union? My best advice at this stage is to tell her to say almost nothing. If an allegation is made she should say it isn't true(I assume it won't be true - obviously if it is true she should not say anything at all). Please understand that it isn't our role to believe her or not believe her (and you are just a tad biased!). So we can only advise based on what we know and trying to be impartial. She should take clear notes of what is said and done. Make them pause so she can take notes if needs be. Her record if this is important. She should not attempt too explain herself or go into details. And she should not resign. Definitely do not resign. This may be nothing more than an attempt to oust her quicker, but in care settings allegations like this can come back to haunt her, so she mustn't do or say anything too precipitous.
  5. I think "over-thinking" is your middle name! There is nothing to "investigate" - that is a vast over dramatisation. By this definition, employers "investigate" absolutely everything all the time. You have done nothing wrong, nor are you accused of doing anything wrong - the employer is simply looking at the circumstances in which you came to be paid this allowance. They are continuing to look into it, almost certainly (assuming you did what I told you to do) because they had made a decision to remove the allowance and hadn't calculated on your knowing that they could not "just" change a TUPE'd term that easily. On technical grounds, yes, of course they can change their minds. You want them to change their minds about the allowance, so it would be perverse to expect that they can only change their minds if the change suits you! However, and I am really not going to go into this is detail again, they could not sustain a legal argument that this is a mistake or that they can reclaim the allowance. Read the whole thread again - the reasons why they could not sustain such an argument has been dealt with in great detail. There are no "should's" about them putting anything about this in writing. The law doesn't get into details of that sort. When and if they decide to remove the allowance, they must put that in writing, and at that point we can review exactly what they say and what they say they will be doing to remove it. Until then, you sit tight because this is all just so much fluff. Stop fretting about small potatoes. They can contact anyone they like without your permission, because your permission isn't required. Have you written the letter that I suggested you write in post #37?
  6. Yes, the don't talk about this to anyone is very good advice. What other employees don't k now hurts neither them nor you. If they think you don't get paid more than them, then going through the motions of that may be enough. Your problem is that you'd need to be a very valuable employee for the employer to be willing to stand up for your pay against a bigger number of employees than just you. But they obviously didn't care a lot either - until everyone else kicked off. So stay mum and see what happens next.
  7. It isn't "invalid". Which isn't exactly the same thing. You did what I told you - stated firmly it was a term and refused to accept any change? In which case, I think you now formally write to them (keeping copies) saying this. So a confirmation that you had a meeting with them, what was said at that meeting, and reiterating that you have a TUPEd term which you are refusing to change. The ball is then in their court to decide next steps. If they follow the correct process they can remove it. But we have to wait and see better they will.
  8. I don't ever give advice off the boards, regardless of site policy. They're really isn't any reason not to post on the site. I'm more than happy to spend as much time as it requires on the site.
  9. So what you are saying is that you have no idea what you have ever been paid, and no idea what you are currently paid? Do you never check your wages? When you TUPEd you didn't bother to check whether your new employer was actually paying you correctly? Sigh. Look. You are over thinking this. You remind me of someone I represented in the distant mists of time who couldn't be trusted to say anything, so I made her recite "i'm trying to help you but I have no recollection of that" for weeks - because she also kept over thinking it and trying to answer things that hadn't been asked or weren't relevant. It doesn't matter what THEY say. YOU just keep with the mantra that this was the term before you transferred, it transferred with you, it's a term of your employment, you aren't agreeing to give it up. NOTHING ELSE! Please, just stop "thinking". Let them make the running. You need prove nothing. Then if they pursue this, come back and tell us what they actually say, or what they actually intend to do. Got it?
  10. No. The fact that it was paid for so long AND predates this employer would make that a difficult argument to sustain. Which is why all you need to do is stick to the simple " it was part of my terms and conditions with the previous employer and TUPE'd with me". You are over thinking this, and that is going to get your mouth into trouble- you will end up saying something you shouldn't. It is not your job to work out what the employer might say or what you might say in response. You stick to the fact that this is a term historically agreed by the previous employer and forms part of your TUPEd terms. Say nothing else. Answer nothing else. Explain nothing else. It's for the employer to play this, not you.
  11. You can't just send statements to courts. Courts don't accept "evidence" from random strangers. As Emmzzi suggests, you could ask the other side if they could use anything from you. But I'd caution you to be clear headed about the fact that your actions are motivated by revenge, not justice. That much is clear from your language. And there's that old saying about digging two graves to remember. Your version of this is clearly absolutely true. You knew all about this employers illegal activities and shady dealings - which you can evidence; and which, of course, you reported to the appropriate bodies at the time, didn't you? You are alleging clear criminal activity which would not be protected even in a phoenixed company. Company status does not protect directors from action which is illegal. So when you are on the stand in that court, their lawyer will be asking you for your evidence, for the details of the reports you made, and the outcomes. And if you do not have those, then your are a lying disgruntled former employee. If you do have evidence but did nothing, you are a complicit former employee. In other words, almost every way you cut it, you end up looking as bad as the person you are accusing. Or worse. Besides which, if the company no longer exists, who on earth is the former client suing? There's no personal liability unless they can prove - prove - that he acted illegally or negligently. That's a very high standard to prove on current activities, never mind historical ones. Get involved, and you invite attack on you. What he claims has no validity unless he has evidence. Lawyers can twist and turn your involvement- you could easily have the opposite effect. As for defamation. If you could afford defamation proceedings, you wouldn't be on a free anonymous website asking for legal advice. There's a £10k court deposit for such proceedings. Really, sometimes anger is best left in the past.
  12. Ah. Now it's becoming clearer how this has become an issue. If someone was paid it and then hag it taken away, then the issue arose out of that. So other people did know the allowance existed, and that explains how everyone found out about it. But that doesn't change anything. They can, if they want to, withdraw the allowance if they follow the correct procedure. Your only position is that it is a term, and a TUPE'd term - no cause to explain anything at all.
  13. You have no right to take anyone with you. This is neither a grievance nor a disciplinary - which are the only circumstances in which you have that right, and even then, it is only a trade union official certified for that reason or a colleague. I do feel that you are overthinking this. Where are these "feelings" coming from, because what you think the employer will ask appears to be a rather convoluted approach by them to something that is actually easy. Is there something else going on here that you aren't telling us? It is not up to you to go into a meeting and explain or prove anything. If you have paperwork relating to the original agreement that would be useful, but all that does is prove that you did have the allowance agreed at some time in the past. It doesn't prevent them withdrawing the allowance, and only dictates how they can do so. Your position is that your previous employer paid that allowance. That was a term that TUPEd over with you. Full stop. There can't be a mistake unless it was a mistake by the previous employer and at this stage they cannot prove that even if it were true. You do not agree to the allowance, to which you are entitled, being withdrawn. You don't say or explain anything else. It is then down to the employer to decide what they are going to do. They can, as I have explained, lawfully enforce a change of terms, or they can drop the issue. If they did the former, they must follow the process that I've explained to you already. Anything else can be ascribed as an unlawful deduction of wages. It isn't up to you to prove anything. Your wages have been paid with this allowance for xx years, by the previous employer and this one. They would have to prove that there was a mistake, and they would need evidence of that. How, exactly, do you think they will provide it? Even with the law stacked against employees, an employer can't simply say "we made a mistake in your salary, give us some back"! They need proof a mistake was made. I'll ask this again though. Is there something else going on here that we don't know about? Advice is only as good as the information it's based on. And you do seem to to have a recurrent "feeling" that they are going to ask about or argue specific points.
  14. I totally understand that you feel aggrieved. But does he? Because your aren't suggesting that he does. He is, quite literally, going to have to fight his own battles now. What does he want to do?
  • Create New...