Hubby suspended for theft..

[rebel11]

Employment Tribunals: an introduction : Directgov - Employment

 

Employment Tribunal

[Bookworm]

I've got to update my DD's thread, DBC I think we should have a competition as to whose employer is the most ludicrous, just you wait I have written it all down!

[deathbycrayons]

Hello guests!! Elche I see you're reading the thread, I'd value your opinion

[andie_303]

Hey DBC - Just wanted to say in doing some research on ET currently people are waiting in excess of a year to get to tribunal so whatever you do be aware this is a long haul you are about to embark on - good luck x

[deathbycrayons]

Hey DBC - Just wanted to say in doing some research on ET currently people are waiting in excess of a year to get to tribunal so whatever you do be aware this is a long haul you are about to embark on - good luck x

 

Oh goodness me yes, I know It's worth it though

[ErikaPNP]

Ahem!! Let's just put this into perspective - again:

 

At the original hearing:

Thank you Also - the union rep said a lot of the advice on this thread was wrong!!?? Which I'm not sure is right....

 

 

At the appeal hearing:

He's been reinstated and has to return back to work on Wednesday. On the condition that I don't post on CAG anymore regarding the company

 

Hmmm...why? If the advice offered is so factually incorrect, why on earth would they be bothered about the post, particularly as the supermarket is not named?

 

He's been reinstated

 

I rest my case.

 

They cannot reinstate him on a conditional basis because, in overturning the decision, they are admitting that the decision to dismiss him was incorrect. They must reinstate him according to his terms and conditions before he was dismissed, unless they are issuing him with a new contract which includes such a clause; and if they were to do that to him and only him without doing it for other staff members, there's a word for it: "vitimisation".

 

Moreover, they cannot set a condition that he controls the actions of another individual which is what ultimately they are telling him he must do to be reinstated. You are an adult in your own right, and he cannot take responsibility for your actions. I would strongly discourage him from signing anything which states he agrees to this.

 

You could not use the Human Rights Act to argue that he can't control your actions because, human rights law governs the relationship between a state and all those persons who find themselves within the power and authority of that state; it does not govern the relationship between private individuals or between private companies and individuals.

 

Even so; your husband's employers have absolutley no authority to demand he control your actions, or the actions of any third party as a condition of reinstating him. He is employed by the company, you are not. They could of course place a clause in his contract which prohibits him from posting about the supermarket in a manner which may bring them into disrepute; they cannot, however insert a clause which states he must control the actions of another person/prevent another individual from posting. No ifs and no buts about it.

 

They can of course request that you do not post in regard to the company but they cannot make it a condition of his employment.

[rebel11]

ErikaPNP, nice work.

[mariefab]

Does the disciplinary charge stay the same? Will it remain on his record as:

'Gross misconduct - unauthorised possession and consumption of company property in that when you were staff checked on 23-09-09 you had in your pocket a packet of M milk chocolate californian raisins for which you could not provide proof of purchase.'

 

Have they simply reduced the penalty from dismissal to final written warning?

 

(Waves to 4 guests.)

[credit allergy]

This is the crucial point. If they are changing the sentence upon appeal it doesnt automatically follow that their orginal sismissal was unfair in law. Otherwise there would be little point in having an appeals system because if every time a decision was amended or reversed the employer is admitting a breach of employment law. I have read all the threads and posts IMHO I feel the grievance against the manager is a seperate issue. It might be better concentrating your efforts on sorting out the theft accusation first. You need to find out what the written warning is for and then decide from there your next step.

[deathbycrayons]

The guests might be people from my facebook page, I told them to come and read it

[deathbycrayons]

2 stoer employess just hand delivered the letters lol. The appeal one gave terms of reinstatement, and I laughed when I read this part:

 

"I must also note the use of web 'blogs' and facebook. Whilst you state you did not place material on this yourself, your wife had commented on websites that were relevent to the case, and this is totally unacceptable. I remind you that derogatory comments about the company or colleagues will not be permitted in the workplace or via the internet. In accordance with the company's staff handbook, employees found to be making derogatory comments may be subject to disciplinary action for bringing the company or its employees into disrepute, including use of the internet".

 

Well - he hasn't. I HAVE!!

Edited November 3, 2009 by deathbycrayons
oops..

[Surfer01]

How many times has the company in question, name been mentioned on this thread? Not once if I am correct so they cannot request that entries be removed especially as you are using a nom de plume and therefore us poor ignorant people have no idea who you are or where you live and cannot associate you with any company!

[deathbycrayons]

How many times has the company in question, name been mentioned on this thread? Not once if I am correct so they cannot request that entries be removed especially as you are using a nom de plume and therefore us poor ignorant people have no idea who you are or where you live and cannot associate you with any company!

 

Exactly - I've even had people private messaging me asking what is the company in question!!

[deathbycrayons]

Bob's just briefed our solicitor over the phone, lots of giggles going on, and we have an appointment to see her on Thursday. OH has sent a letter explaining why he does not accept the terms, and that he wishes to appeal their decision.

[rebel11]

Doesn't the company bring itself into 'disrepute' by acting in this appuling manner, clearly a complaint has set off the other events. In the handbook it says if you have a 'grievance' then you should pursue it with management. It even tell's you what to do. When you do they get vindictive, a very mature 21st century organisation.

 

You can also get help from the Retail Trust

Welcome to the Retail Trust website - Retail Trust

[deathbycrayons]

Doesn't the company bring itself into 'disrepute' by acting in this appuling manner, clearly a complaint has set off the other events. In the handbook it says if you have a 'grievance' then you should pursue it with management. It even tell's you what to do. When you do they get vindictive, a very mature 21st century organisation.

 

You can also get help from the Retail Trust

Welcome to the Retail Trust website - Retail Trust

 

That's a really good website - thank you. OH has suffered a lot of verbal abuse and bullying, and as he is also a carer and they don't seem to recognise his carers responsibilities, that looks like an organisation that might be able to help him.

[rebel11]

Company Director's should be made accountable for 'Bullying'. They should

be responsible for the actions of the 'Managers' they employee.

[deathbycrayons]

That's another thing we're not going to let lie.

[andie_303]

2 stoer employess just hand delivered the letters lol. The appeal one gave terms of reinstatement, and I laughed when I read this part:

 

"I must also note the use of web 'blogs' and facebook. Whilst you state you did not place material on this yourself, your wife had commented on websites that were relevent to the case, and this is totally unacceptable. I remind you that derogatory comments about the company or colleagues will not be permitted in the workplace or via the internet. In accordance with the company's staff handbook, employees found to be making derogatory comments may be subject to disciplinary action for bringing the company or its employees into disrepute, including use of the internet".

 

Well - he hasn't. I HAVE!!

 

As their employee has not done such a thing I hope a reminder has been sent to all other employees otherwise this could constitute victimisation.

 

I sincerely hope HR at not aforementioned store are continuing to look at this thread to pick up some pointers about how not to break the law in the future - perhaps some retraining is needed??

[JimmySpangle]

This company is unbelieveable. They want to impose terms on their employee to the effect that NOBODY including me posts anything on CAG about this??? Completely unacceptable requirement and I would suggest completely illegal to try to impose something over which the employee has absolutely no control.

 

This employee doesn't know me, so how is he going to stop me or anyone else for that matter from posting on here?

 

It seems obvious that the people making decisions at this company have not got the slightest idea about employment law whatsoever. I have never come across such arrogant incompetence in my life. They have a very hard lesson to learn and I totally support and encourage you to take them to court for this. I would suggest their actions are unlawful and as such would suggest you do indeed see a solicitor regarding the new terms of his return.

[rebel11]

Unfortunately, I have, many, many times. The most important aspect to any business are the customers. But a very close second are the employees the way they are treated always reflects in the companies

profit. The difference is that customers can walk if they don't like the treatment, but employees don't have that luxury, they have to take the

rubbish and that in turn can have health consequences.

[greendollar]

2 stoer employess just hand delivered the letters lol. The appeal one gave terms of reinstatement, and I laughed when I read this part:

 

"I must also note the use of web 'blogs' and facebook. Whilst you state you did not place material on this yourself, your wife had commented on websites that were relevent to the case, and this is totally unacceptable. I remind you that derogatory comments about the company or colleagues will not be permitted in the workplace or via the internet. In accordance with the company's staff handbook, employees found to be making derogatory comments may be subject to disciplinary action for bringing the company or its employees into disrepute, including use of the internet".

 

Well - he hasn't. I HAVE!!

 

Perhaps they should have said that he's not allowed to discuss work related issues with you?

That would put a stop to your interfering...lol....."how was your day at work dear"...........silence

[sad man_07]

wow what a thread !! I am so pleased that you have made this stance against this un-named supermarket DBC as the teatment of your husband is disgraceful. Secondly well done to all the posters on here who have offered invaluable advice to DBC on this issue and I am sure helped many other people like me understand HR mnagement better.

 

(p.s. Lets hope the supermarket who I don't know the name of have also learnt from this too)

[Ell-enn]

Secondly well done to all the posters on here who have offered invaluable advice to DBC on this issue and I am sure helped many other people like me understand HR mnagement better.

 

quote]

 

Please do not take the way this particular company have acted as indicative of how all HR practitioners operate. One bad apple etc etc.....

[sad man_07]

Secondly well done to all the posters on here who have offered invaluable advice to DBC on this issue and I am sure helped many other people like me understand HR mnagement better.

 

quote]

 

Please do not take the way this particular company have acted as indicative of how all HR practitioners operate. One bad apple etc etc.....

 

I agree 100% Ell-enn but I think it shows many on how HR should not be done and more amazing is that it was done by a large company with large resources