Jump to content


Site Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sidewinder last won the day on December 27 2016

Sidewinder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,750 Excellent

About Sidewinder

  • Rank
    Site Team

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The above advice is sound. One chance to resolve and a reasonable deadline for doing so, then follow through with the threat. MoneyClaim for breach of contract and a demand to be paid what is due. You can claim for reasonable costs for time, copying, stamps etc and also add the fee for lodging the claim to the amounts owed plus interest. Make sure that the claim is served to the Defendant at the correct address and in the correct name. Unfortunately making the claim and getting a Judgment doesn't necessarily just result in the money being paid. You may need to pay more for enforcement, and if the claim is made against an insolvent company you may never see a penny. That isn't to say that you shouldn't proceed with the claim, just that it may be necessary to take professional advice should any next steps be required
  2. Gross Misconduct isn't strictly defined - it is an issue which is considered so severe that it destroys the mutual trust and confidence of the employee/employer relationship. There are obvious examples such as violence, theft, drugs etc, but there are also other examples which may or may not be considered serious enough to dismiss. If the employee were to take the case to a Tribunal the only issues to consider are whether the dismissal was 'reasonable' in the circumstances (any reasonable employer would have reached the same outcome) and whether the decision was made after a 'reasonable' investigation considering the size and resources of the employer. For any dismissal, either for capability or conduct, a 'fair' procedure must be followed. Even in a clear-cut case of gross misconduct, this is nothing like you would see on TV with an employee being bawled out and told they are fired. For suspected GM, even though it might be appropriate to suspend the employee (on full pay), this should be for evidence gathering purposes where necessary and the employee should be given written confirmation of the suspension and the reason for it. They should then be given a written invitation to attend a disciplinary hearing and that dismissal may be an outcome to that meeting, and they should be given the opportunity to have a colleague, Trade Union Representative or Trade Union Official accompany them to the disciplinary and to help present their case, take notes or to confer during the hearing. If representation cannot be arranged or if there are other reasonable barriers to the meeting being held then an alternative mutually acceptable date should be agreed. Following the hearing and when a decision is made the employee should be informed of the outcome in writing and given the right to appeal Same procedure applies in conduct issues short of GM, but a fair warning procedure should be used. No suspension required, but written details of the complaint, an invitation to a disciplinary hearing with warning over possible outcomes, right to be accompanied and a right to appeal any final decision. If the complaint leading to the hearing is upheld, then a warning, and notification of how long this would remain on file (no longer than is 'reasonable' - the employee must not have it hanging over them forever), and that any subsequent breach might result in further action up to and including dismissal For matters of capability, then possible reasons for the underperformance should be discussed at a less formal investigatory hearing so that the employer can explore ways in which to overcome any obstacles - proper or additional training, are there health or personal issues affecting performance? Is there anything the employer can do to help? There may be a disability (not necessarily physical or obvious) where the employer once aware, should make any reasonable adjustments necessary to allow the employee to work within the limits of that disability - what is 'reasonable' will vary for both parties but you should be mindful that any dismissal as a result of the disability will likely be unlawful unless any such adjustments have been considered. This may be to allow extra time to complete tasks, allowing more latitude for absence, where the absence is caused by the disability, changing workstation, or improving access to a workplace for the employee. If however there are no such issues affecting performance then the employer should set reasonable targets and timescales for improvement and dates set for progress reviews. If underperformance continues then there can be a move to a warning process whereby dismissal could result if sufficient progress is not made. Again, keep everything confirmed in writing and allow the legal rights for accompaniment and appeal These procedures apply to all employees and must be applied fairly and evenhandedly - irrespective of gender, race, religion etc. Dismissal following a fair procedure will not be a problem irrespective of race, religion, disability. Your suggestion that you have to treat one employee differently due to a protected characteristic is not true, providing that you have used a fair procedure and have made allowances for any protected characteristic. It is a myth that you cannot dismiss for long term sickness, or cannot dismiss a disabled employee, but you must follow fair procedures. These rights apply to all employees irrespective of service, but should the employee have less than two years service, you have a certain protection against a claim for Unfair Dismissal unless the dismissal was due to a protected characteristic Not at all sure that I would agree with the way that you worded your OP? "I'm trying not to personalize this too much, so would appreciate any advice in a general sense. Is there legislation that states there must be, for example, a verbal warning first, followed by 2 written warnings, then 'boom!' sack time. Or can a boss just fire you because she doesn't like your face - (providing of course that 'face' doesn't look pregnant, black, gay, transgender, etc, or any other protected characteristic - just a regular 'unprotected' straight white middle-aged male!)" As said previously, policies and disciplinary procedures must be evenly applied. You 'could' dismiss because you don't like the employee's face/tie/aftershave, but it wouldn't be lawful unless that employee was actually doing anything wrong (although if employed for less than two years they could do little to take the case to a Tribunal unless they allege that the dismissal was for a protected characteristic), so you should look at attitude, workplace harmony, negative impression of customers etc rather than personality itself and use a warning process Of course any employer, of any size should have adequate disciplinary rules in place and available to staff otherwise it becomes very difficult to allege that rules or expectations have been breached when staff are unaware of what the rules are or what could result from breaking them, so if you do not have these in place then you could find things very difficult - dismissal for punching a colleague will almost certainly be reasonable in most circumstances, but for lesser misdemeanours, employees must know what is acceptable and not have to guess and be ambushed at a disciplinary. You must also apply the same disciplinary sanctions to all employees - allowing one to remain with a warning but dismissing another for the same offence could easily be construed as unfair. Hopefully you do have such procedures published and employees are aware of them? I have probably missed something out of the above, or have applied the procedures incorrectly - Emmzi or Sangie are much better qualified than I - but hopefully the above helps. The ACAS Code is not law as such, but is used as a measure by Tribunals and failure to apply the Code could, in the event of a successful claim, be used to increase any awards made. Equally, following the Code and being able to demonstrate fair process and reasonable sanctions made will protect you from false or spurious claims
  3. The retailer I do work for used to have a rogues gallery in a number of stores - polaroid type snaps not lifted from CCTV in many cases but with those detailed asked to look at the camera and watch the birdie (many I recall were smiling or posing for the camera). There were literally hundreds of photos on some of the walls with a summary of what they were suspected of taking written underneath. All disappeared a few years ago though and have never been seen since.
  4. As DX says try not to worry - even IF the police were contacted by Asda they would most likely not follow it up. The most likely reason for the guard taking the numberplate details would be to enter it on some sort of store reporting system. Details of incidents are logged purely for internal use and they might just cross check to make sure that other stores haven't reported the same type of incident with your car being used - it also helps the guarding contractor (stores mainly use outside security companies nowadays) to justify their existence in terms of actually stopping a theft. As an isolated incident however I very much doubt that you will hear any more about this, but (and I know you probably won't) don't be tempted to try this again as it could have ended up being worse than it has
  5. Whilst it may be true that any person can arrest and detain a suspected offender - that person using 'reasonable force' would be extremely unwise unless they have absolute certainty that a relevant offence has been committed. In the circumstances outlined in Post #2, it would be extremely foolish to detain somebody revisiting a store where an offence was merely suspected of taking place at some previous time, and no proof existed that it actually had
  6. Different outfit, but the same fleecing method as got my father. He had hired a car in Rome and unknowingly racked up half a dozen or so infringements of a controlled traffic zone during his stay. It took almost four years for the fleecers - a UK based DCA - to write threatening hell and damnation unless he paid them well over £1600. In father's case he paid up believing the threats to be legitimate, before owning up to me, and with very little research we discovered that he is not alone and many have been subjected to the same threats. With further research it also became clear that the DCA has absolutely no purpose other than to threaten (and rake off a tidy share of anything recovered) and only IF the local authority in Italy sought to take action they would only have jurisdiction in Italy and providing that you have no intention to return (and even then there would only be a small chance of finding trouble) then there is nothing that they can do. Father later had another letter demanding further payment for another infringement not previously included and rightly that time completely ignored them. He has not heard from them since! As a subnote, the legal system in Italy allows 360 days after establishing the identity of the driver (or hirer) in which to contact you. You should therefore have had a charge to your credit card (presumably) from the hire company, and then a notification and demand for payment from the Italian authorities - which in my father's case was by email and looked like a foreign s*c*a*m so it was deleted and only three years later did he get a letter from the UK DCA
  7. You appear to be suggesting that a ban would be preferable to you than Points? I think it highly unlikely that with a clean licence, and your occupation you would be looking at a ban - certainly with remorse expressed, previously clean licence and needing to be able to drive for work. The amount of the fine could be high as it is based on income at that level, but I can't understand why you would want a ban rather than the likely 6 points? The offence code (so far as I am aware) would be SP50 irrespective of whether that results in a ban or not. If action was taken through the Mags Court then this would be classed as a criminal conviction but surely your professional body would not view that in the same way as, say, a criminal conviction for violence, and maybe even disclosure would not be required for straightforward motoring offences? Yes you would need to disclose the offence to your insurer or any future potential insurers, but as an SP50 whether a ban or fine resulted - this would only be different if a ban was ordered under totting up Others may well be much more clued up on this subject, but I don't see it being any more complicated than in needs to be - other than the likely fine where a professional would have a sufficiently high income for it to be quite punitive As above, admit the offence, show remorse and disappointment in yourself for your actions, offer to take whatever the court awards and plea for consideration to be given to a previously good driving history and the need for you to drive in your employment
  8. If it is a disciplinary hearing then you have a right to be accompanied by a Union rep or work colleague. Have you been advised of this? How long have you had to prepare for the meeting? What would be the case if your Union Rep or colleague was not available on that day. A 'reasonable' employer should postpone the meeting to allow you to have everything in place. Of course it may depend what your 'plans' are - a medical appointment might be one thing but it it is just meeting up with friends of going shopping then it may be that attending a meeting to decide your future employment might reasonably be seen as more of a priority
  9. Sadly the CCJ will remain there until August 2020 whether settled or not and paying it off at this stage will not drastically improve your credit rating, if at all
  10. As above - completely ignore CRS - they will make all kinds of threats but it is extremely unlikely that it will go any further than threats. It is not a criminal matter at all, so they would have to sue in the civil court which would cost far more than they could hope to recover - and even if it did go that far they would need to prove that you deliberately intended to steal rather than this being a genuine mistake. Of course the CR order relies on an admission of guilt in order to be issued, but as above this remains a civil matter and will not involve the police any further The CR order remains a private agreement between you and B&Q - the police have no powers to enforce it. The CR is not a criminal conviction so would not go on a criminal record although it might be stored as 'local information'.
  11. The Wescot and Cabot ones stick out like a sore thumb - they only usually buy debts that have no hope of being enforced via the courts. Have any of the debts actually been through a court in the past?
  12. Wow! I bet very few if any will have adequate CCA agreements for those accounts. Get some CCA requests off and don't pay a penny more to those who cannot come up with the relevant paperwork
  13. A couple of things Has he been with the same employer for those 20 years? Has your husband contracted out of the Working Time Regulations? If he hasn't then he cannot be forced to work an average of more than 48 hours per week.If he has opted out in the past, then he can opt back in by giving the relevant written notice. Also, he should be having the rest breaks allowed by law and uninterrupted periods of at least 11 hours between shifts - is he getting adequate rest? Regarding the working conditions this sounds like more of a H&S issue. I am not familiar with the catering industry but would suspect that many kitchens are similarly uncomfortable to work in. I probably already know the answer, but is there a H&S rep at the workplace? There should be a risk assessment relating to extraction systems and a schedule of work completed to clean them and keep them effective. It would be interesting to see whether this is the case. Would fellow workers back your husband up in raising a complaint? Ultimately it may be that your husband has to raise concerns directly with the employer in a formal manner by raising a grievance. This is not likely to make him popular and unfortunately may mark him out as a troublemaker so he will need to watch his back, but once genuine grievances have been raised, especially in connection with H&S or potential breaches of WT regs, then they should take this seriously and respond appropriately
  14. Agree with the above - Superdrug are basically saying that as you were all together they are not trusting any of you to not be the next ones to try stealing so will not be prepapred to have you on the premises in future - just in case RLP are well known for sending their spurious bill for security costs to each of those who were detained so that hopefully one of you cracks and pays - effectively on behalf of all of you. You can confidently ignore anything that might be sent to you - and tell your friends to do the same, as RLP are not entitled to anything, and all they will do is send letters. They will send increasingly threatening demands though, hence why it would be better if parents were aware of the situation in case a letter gets opened or seen by them in error. If they have any intention to speak to RLP or worse still, pay them, then send them here to ask questions and we will happily put their minds at rest. Ignoring RLP is essential and nothing bad will happen if you do
  • Create New...