Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • FTMDave
      MET ANPR PCN - NtK - BP Blue Boys Tonbridge - Burger King Car Park NOT BP car park.

      By FTMDave · Posted

      The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • ffc1991_
      Driving disqualification through x2 MS90 was unaware of - failure to identify but not the org speeding? sent Statutory Declaration to the court? - help

      By ffc1991_ · Posted

      Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • Man in the middle
      Driving disqualification through x2 MS90 was unaware of - failure to identify but not the org speeding? sent Statutory Declaration to the court? - help

      By Man in the middle · Posted

      I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • afcdebt82
      PRA Claimform - old Lloyds Credit Card - i have lived abroad since 2021

      By afcdebt82 · Posted

      I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • unoTechnology
      Caught Shoplifting at John Lewis

      By unoTechnology · Posted

      John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Dismissed for Gross Misconduct HELP!

waderobas23
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4862 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

waderobas23

waderobas23

Posted
Posted

Hi

I was recently dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct because...

 

its complicated but basically...

I'm a chef worked in a brigade of about 7. On a couple of occasions 6 of decided to play a practical joke on the 7th we'll call him M. The first joke was to hold him down whilst the head chef (line manager) put food in M's face. The second consisted of M having his arms and legs tapped up and his mouth and around his forhead. Then he was dragged on his back through to the kitchen and lifted into a sink of called water. He was then left to get out. Now MY role in the two pranks was, in the first I helped to hold him down in the second, I was just their I saw it I did not take a physical part in it. On another occasion a waitress was taped up and put under a work bench where I then took off her shoe and filled it with mousse.

My former employer is saying that I bullied M and the waitress and that by not reporting the incidents (bearing in mind that my manager masterminded all 3 pranks though the mousse bit was my idea) I was condoning it. Both M and the waitress have protested that I am not a bully and my minimal involvement was not viewed in there eyes as bullying but rather harmless jokes. I had worked for the company for 5 and a half years with an exemplary record, had 1 promotion and on the verge of a second.

My Head Chef had far more involvement than myself as he instigated the pranks video'd them and put them on a social networking site for the public to see bringing the employer into disrepute yet we were both given the same outcombe Summary Dismissal on the grounds of Gross Misconduct.

 

Does this seem right to you guys?? I have appealled and I am now waiting for the outcombe of that but I don't hold out much hope.

 

Thanks for any replys

 

Wade

Link to post
Share on other sites
honeybee13

honeybee13

Posted
Posted

Hello and welcome to the forum. This is I've never worked in a kitchen but I think the 'victims' [can't think of another word atm] of these pranks are being very tolerant. I can't say I'm surprised your colleague was dismissed for the social network website, we see it all the time here.

 

Is anyone else being disciplined, or is it just the two of you?

 

When were you dismissed please?

 

I'm sure other forum members will be along with comments for you.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SarEl

SarEl

Posted
Posted

You have a different definition of "practical joke" than I do - and it's also different than the one the law uses. This is bullying and harassment - not fun. I don't hold out any hope for your appeal either. The employer is absolutely in the right (and it isn't often I say that) to stamp on this sort of behaviour, and any tribunal in the land would agree with them. What the recipients of these "practical jokes" made of them (or you) and who masterminded them is not relevant in law, and any one of these incidents would have been quite sufficient for a fair dismissal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
heliosfa

heliosfa

Posted
Posted

I'm not too familiar with employment law but I have to agree with SarEl's post. What occured in the first instance than nothing more was a group of people victimising/bullying a single person. The second time, you did nothing to intervene - you could have gone above the head chef's head and reported it to his manager or done numerous other things. As for the mousse in the shoe, that just seems malicious and by adding this "fun" to the party you were most definitely condoning it.

 

I would have to say that you are lucky that the victims have not gone to the police alleging false imprisonment, assault and possibly criminal dmage because, at the end of the day, that is what you were a part of from what you have said. Dependant on the mental state of these victims after these "attacks", they could come after you for psychological damage.

 

If I was one of these victims and became aware that you were trying to appeal your dismissal, I would be disgusted and insulted as it would apear that you were trying to avoid responsibility for your actions.

 

/rant - Sorry - I have no sympathy for people who partake in the unwarranted and malicious abuse of other people and won't take responsibility

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
elpulpo

elpulpo

Posted
Posted
You have a different definition of "practical joke" than I do - and it's also different than the one the law uses. This is bullying and harassment - not fun. I don't hold out any hope for your appeal either. The employer is absolutely in the right (and it isn't often I say that) to stamp on this sort of behaviour, and any tribunal in the land would agree with them. What the recipients of these "practical jokes" made of them (or you) and who masterminded them is not relevant in law, and any one of these incidents would have been quite sufficient for a fair dismissal.

Yep. Might I say, as a Chef, that it's silly little boys like you and your superior who give my profession a bad name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SarEl

SarEl

Posted
Posted
Yep. Might I say, as a Chef, that it's silly little boys like you and your superior who give my profession a bad name.

 

Really? I had never particularly associated chefs with bullyig before. I may have to look at them in a whole new light. There was me thinking that they were only responsible for silly sized portions under the guise of "classy cooking"!

Link to post
Share on other sites
waderobas23

waderobas23

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi,

If a joke is played at work (including physical actions by that I mean being held down) on a coworker who is seen to be laughing at and in NO WAY finding the joke offensive humiliating etc Is it then right that the employer can summarily dismiss all persons present regardless of how much of a role they may have played in the joke. For example someone being dismissed purely for witnessing the joke and not reporting it to personnel. Does that constitute gross misconduct? Keep in mind that the coworker having the joke played on them is laughing at the time and is willing to make formal statements in the defence of all persons that have "bullied" him as the company have put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
madari

madari

Posted
Posted

Hi,What you have described above is `Horseplay during work time`and as such quite easily amounts to gross misconduct in the eyes of a reasonable employer.

 

Any reasonable employer is within their rights to dismiss all participants for the above mentioned actions, pending an appeal of course.

 

The bullied person can try and defend his actions by claiming to play along by way of`fitting in`.

 

I hope the above helps and good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
waderobas23

waderobas23

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi thanks for the response.

So the person that witnessed the horesplay but did not report it because the "bullied" person was quite clearly not being bullied can still be SUMMARILY dismissed on grounds of GROSS misconduct? imo surely a final written warning would have been sufficient. This person has worked for the company for over 5 years with no grievencess etc against him ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
waderobas23

waderobas23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Thanks El that ,[i wasnt aware of his previous post] ...it seems some people will just not take `No` for an answer.

 

In my last post I thought that maybe I had not worded it correctly and maybe other posters had not understood what the situation was. I am not trying to waste anyones time, just trying to explain accurately enough so that posters can give me an accurate opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites
SarEl

SarEl

Posted
Posted
Yes I have had my appeal since my first post and am now at the stage of going to employment tribunal

 

Good luck with that - you will loose. We understood your first thread perfectly well. You are a bully and appear to think that acts of humilation against other employees are amusing. You deserved to be dismissed and no tribunal in the land will overturn a dismissal on these grounds. Which part of "this is not a joke and is not funny" did you not understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
waderobas23

waderobas23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Good luck with that - you will loose. We understood your first thread perfectly well. You are a bully and appear to think that acts of humilation against other employees are amusing. You deserved to be dismissed and no tribunal in the land will overturn a dismissal on these grounds. Which part of "this is not a joke and is not funny" did you not understand?

 

I find your agressive posting to be needless and unhelpful if you agree with my ex employers that is fine it is your opinion and you are entitled to it however there is no need for you to call me a bully. You do not know me or anything of me that qualifys you to judge my character. The people I have spoken about DO know me and would support me in saying that I am NOT a bully. They would also support me in saying my dismissal was unreasonable. I am not and have never been a bully. I will not bother to use this site again as I feel more bullied by your needless comments than anyone has ever felt about anything I have ever done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SarEl

SarEl

Posted
Posted
I find your agressive posting to be needless and unhelpful if you agree with my ex employers that is fine it is your opinion and you are entitled to it however there is no need for you to call me a bully. You do not know me or anything of me that qualifys you to judge my character. The people I have spoken about DO know me and would support me in saying that I am NOT a bully. They would also support me in saying my dismissal was unreasonable. I am not and have never been a bully. I will not bother to use this site again as I feel more bullied by your needless comments than anyone has ever felt about anything I have ever done.

 

You are a bully and whether or not the victims of your childish "humour" think you are or not is irrelevant - the employer thinks you are, what you have done constitutes bullying and harassment of a serious nature in law, and a tribunal will also think that you are a bully. Your were treated, generally, with more respect that your actions deserved the last time that you posted here. You have come back for a second bite of the cherry because you did not like the answers you got that time. You have shown not a shred of remorse for your entirely inappropriate behaviour, and have sought to blame others for decisions that YOU made to join in the collective bullying of individual staff. You held someone down whilst others smeared food in someones face. You stood by and encouraged the tying up and dumping of a woman and for good measure you filled her shoe with food. You watched and laughed (and I bet jeered) whilst people were systematically bullied, and you participated bith by watching and participating whilst this happened. And you think that I am aggressive??? Tough luck. Not everybody is intimidated by bullies - and that is very certainly what you are.

 

Your dismissal was not only reasonable IN LAW - which is all that matters because nobody gives a damn what people who know you think - but it was well-deserved. Too few bullies are dismissed, and I would certainly support an employer, faced with this degree of bullying in a workplace, making an example of everyone who participates in it. Grow up and take some responsibility for your own actions. Nobody (over the age of two years) is so stupid that they think that the sort of behaviour that you participated in is funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
postggj

postggj

Posted
Posted

Be it some one is an alleged bully

drink driver

etc, etc

 

what right have we to pass judgement, people come onto the forum to ask for help.

That help and all options should be given without personal insults.

 

We need to remember

 

we all started off asking the forum for help

Link to post
Share on other sites
SarEl

SarEl

Posted
Posted

There were no personal insults - just the truth. And I seem to recall that you also posted to the previous thread pointing out the fact that the OP had had no regard for health and safety legislation in a kitchen, which, as you pointed out, is a very dangerous place even when people are not acting inappropriately. It is all too common for bullies of this sort to excuse their behaviour by suggesting that it doesn't matter because it was a joke. It does matter, and it is not a joke. And in this case, at least three of the incidents were not only bullying and entirely inappropriate behaviour in a workplace (or, frankly, anywhere else) - they were, had the victims reported it, criminal assualts. So not very funny at all. All the OP is doing is demonstrating that that they lack the maturity to know the difference between humour and bullying, or accept responsibility for their actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...