Jump to content

sangie5952

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

sangie5952 last won the day on April 29 2019

sangie5952 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,216 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. With the best interests of the OP at the heart of this - he isn't getting his job back and life isn't fair.I have now seen the details, and no - its probably not fair. Life isn't. My advice is to claim what he is entitled to - the money he is owed and holiday - via ACAS / a tribunal claim.Join a union. Learn the point. Move on. The money he is owed is simple.take what he is owed and then get on with his life.I appreciate there may be other "facts" - they really aren't all that important.There are no price tags on this. Stuff isn't fair in life.
  2. Well then we will have to disagree. But whilst we are making up stuff and wildly speculating on "facts", I will just point out that if, of course, there is more to this story, then your strategy could in fact be very dangerous. What actually happened may not be something that the OP - or her son - want in a court of law. Perhaps his story is entirely true. Perhaps it is entirely untrue and he has been let go for some other reason. For example, maybe he made a racist comment to his black trainer, who is now refusing to have him in the workplace; and his manager has taken pity on him and is givi
  3. I did not provide any further links because Ethel already did so and that is all that is required. The law sets down the notice periods, as Ethel has linked to, unless varied by individual contractual terms. This is not a case of choice - there are either better terms offered by contract, or there are the statutory terms set down in law. There are therefore no implied terms, as you suggest there are. The law is very clear. The practice of that law is very clear. Even ACAS get this correct. So if you are suggesting that "implied terms" (and by their very nature, an implied term needs something
  4. I don't have the wider detail to which Bankfodder is referring, but I do wish to clarify one point - there is no implied term to give one weeks notice in the first month, because there is law that makes this matter entirely and utterly clear. In the absence of an actual written contractual term, the notice period is that which the law sets out. No court, civil or otherwise, has the lawful right to operate contrary to the law and decide otherwise. On a small matter of opinion, I would advise against trying to talk to the employer yourself. I do understand where Bankfodder is coming
  5. Sorry, but I'm afraid Bankfodder had made an error in law. In employment law, there is no notice period of the person had worked less than a month, so no notice pay is due. He is only entitled to the weeks work plus any accrued holiday pay. An employment tribunal claim is free to make, and is more beautiful than the county court. Basically he would need to send the employer a letter before action saying that he intends to take legal action unless the amount owed is paid within a reasonable time (usually 21 or 28 days). If it isn't paid you can start pre- claim processes with ACAS, and for the
  6. There are time limits to claims, dating from the point at which there is an alleged diagnosis - in your case it would be 2011, and you would now be massively out of time as you knew in 2011 that he was being affected by hearing loss. However, it is also not so simple as "working in factory" = "deafness caused by employment". I presume whoever told you this was a lawyer specialising in such claims? In which case the obvious answer is to get a second opinion, although I suspect that what your have been told is the correct answer.
  7. And that's as they should do. If there is a proven case of neglect or abuse that goes to the DBS. They would then have to decide on fitness to undertake this kind of work. Which is why we wait. There's nothing positive that can be done, but multiple ways to screw up!
  8. I realise this is hard on both of you for different reasons, but you just need to stick with the plan. She goes to the disciplinary and she tells an unadorned version of events sticking to the basic facts. The door was locked as normal. Someone came in at XX o'clock. At YY o'clock, when she was doing [a job] she became aware of the fact that a client had left the premises. She went to retrieve the client. Maybe what she then did - but really basic (for example, checked client ok, wrote up report or whatever). She does not say she knows that the door must have not closed properly - unless she c
  9. My views on an entirely irrelevant matter . But when I voted, at least I was fully aware of the issues that I was dealing with and voted accordingly - I did not go around making stuff up to suit my personal opinions. The quote you placed here did not come from ACAS, but from an ambulance chasers site, which is designed to lure in the unwary. So that claim you made was not true, as was much of what you posted earlier on and which you now say wasn't true. I am wondering if, at any point, you will realise that your personal opinion does not constitute the law. Removing a
  10. And the fact that it annoys you is why you should not be interfering. You are not objective and you are not helping here. For all you know, at the time of the incident she was shopping in Sainsbury's. You have only her word for what happened, and your belief in her word is irrelevant. You keep confusing your beliefs and opinions with facts - the same "facts" are open to a range of other interpretations, and absolutely everything that you and she says that it isn't necessary to be said may cast doubt on her version of events. That's the whole point of saying little and keep it simple - not ela
  11. Exactly how does this equate to the advice of sit back and don't do anything? No you don't and can't add it to the disciplinary - and you had no right to write on your wife's behalf about anything. You could have made things worse. What exactly have you said to them? You asked - and were told - that you have no right to represent her. That's in any capacity. They are absolutely right that they shouldn't communicate with you at all. And you should not have written anything, no matter who signed it (and it should never have been you) before the disciplinary meeting. I'm going to say
  12. Look up the definition of sanction. And there is nothing in law that says either of these things. You have been told what the law says.
  13. Really? Is that true? Because the link embedded in the quote takes you to a private company who charge you for "union representation". Shocking that ACAS promote such companies. Oh, well they don't.... https://www.workplace-representation.co.uk - a private company not ACAS
  14. So you are now ignoring all the advice given here and by (your?) union in favour of inaccurate advice given by ambulance chasers? This is going to end badly.
  15. You had no right to be accompanied. That right only accrues to a disciplinary or grievance hearing - this is neither. And beyond that, sorry, but I give up. You aren't hearing what is said, so you need to go your own way since that is what you want to do.
×
×
  • Create New...