Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
    • At a key lecture in the City of London, the shadow chancellor will also vow to reform the Treasury.View the full article
    • Despite controversy China's Temu is becoming a global online shopping force.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • 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
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Suspended from work this evening


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3559 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

Hi all,

 

Looking for some honest advice, no judgement.

 

I was suspended from work tonight - I work in a shop and the temperate in there was 32 degrees and the heat was making me feel sick and dizzy. I left the till and asked a colleague to jump on for 2 minutes for me. I went into the staff room and got a drink. While I was in there I phoned my partner to say I wasn't feeling well and I was thinking of telling my manager I needed to go home. I was on the phone to her for 44 seconds and then hung up.

 

My manager came to the door and flew off the handle, started shouting at me, pointing her finger at me saying that she's had to have several conversations with me about coming off the shop floor without asking (not quite the truth but I'll get to that) and that I should seriously reconsider my position in the company - she said lots of other things about how we were all hot etc and then proceeded to suspend me.

 

I rang my partner to say she'd need to come and get me as I was being sent home and then my manager started shouting at me again, swearing etc. She accused me of all sorts to the point where a colleague who had been stood by watching had to interrupt her and say it was best that it was left there and that I should go home.

 

Now, to put things into perspective - over a month ago I was out the back sorting rubbish. While I was stacking pallets and sorting rubbish I was having a cigarette. It's a pretty common thing that most people do, including the assistant manager and supervisors. I didn't stop working to do it, I was constantly on the move doing the job. She came out then and told me I was a **** taker and that I really didn't want to get on her bad side. She then slagged me off to a colleague but I just let it all go and said nothing.

 

She then spoke to me two weeks later as something had happened with a colleague and I took some time outside to calm down, spoke to my partner and went back in. Nothing was said straight away and then I was spoken to about it by her and the assistant manager. I apologised and since then made sure I didn't use my phone or take breaks when I shouldn't etc (not that I did anyway - it was a one off).

 

Now I've been suspended and I really don't know where I stand - she's making out she's had all these problems with me when in reality, she shouted at me once and I didn't actually do anything wrong and then she spoke to me about the one off incident. Other than that I work my backside off and love my job.

 

Being suspended is obviously never a good sign I just don't know how it will go - she doesn't seem to be a reasonable person and lots of people have had issues with her but sadly seems to make up the rules herself.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated, sorry for the long post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. I'm sorry to hear about your problems.

 

My understanding is that suspension is a neutral act while the facts are established. Are you being paid?

 

I hope the employment guys will be along later with advice for you. Please sit tight until they can get here. :)

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

I will give some general advice. You may need to provide some more information for others to help you accurately.

 

1) How long have you worked for the employer.

2) Are you a union member

 

OK general advice.

 

A) Write down for your benefit the incdents concerned. You should be told the reason for your suspension. You need to wrtie down the WHO WHAT WHERE WHENs as well as WHO ELSE witnessed it

 

B) Check your companies greivance and disaplinary procedures, normally in the staff handbook if you have one or in your contract. Ideally you are looking to see if your company allows representation or witness at the investigatory stage. If in doubt try and request a copy of the precedures.

 

C) If you are allowed Witness/Union representative then arrange it with the witness (Normally someone you work with)

 

D) Remain calm in the investagatory meeting.

 

E) If you feel you are going to loose it in any way then ask for a small adjournment to compose yourself. (If they refuse make sure they noteit in the notes)

 

F) If they are not taking notes, take some yourself :)

 

G) Tell the truth, no lies

 

H) At the end READ THE NOTES carefully. ONLY SIGN if you are happy they represent an accurate pictture on what was said. If they do not, ask them to make adjustments. If they refuse, sign the notes with "Signed under duress as notes are not accurate"

 

I) Before signing make sure they write in the request for a copy of the notes to be run off and delivered to you in reasonable time before any disciplinary meeting (if there is one) to allow you to prepare.

 

J) Scribble out or draw a big Z under the last sentence of the notes to prevent post signing additions.

 

From the behavior you have mentioned it is out of order in the way you have been treated. Shouting swearing etc is all intimidation and bullying and defiantly not DIGNITY AT WORK and grounds for a later grievance,

 

Others may also make comments on the suggestion that you write a grievance before hand against the manager and insist that in the interests of a impartial investigatory and disciplinary process that you feel the manager should be exempt from the process. But wait and see what others say.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, in order to avoid being sued for "unlawful deduction of earnings" the suspension should be paid if you have not yet been disciplined. "Investigatory suspension" is normally the term used where you are paid.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

 

I started in March - I've just passed my probationary period of 3 months. She kept making reference to speaking to me on 'numerous' occasions - making out that there have been lots of issues with my conduct. Other than the telling off she gave me for smoking while doing a job outside and when I was spoken to because I'd gone out after the problem with a colleague there hasn't been anything else.

 

When I went on shift this afternoon she marched up to me, told me that the store needed to be immaculate and that it wasn't up to her standards (I'd only just come in) as a director is coming in tomorrow so she was clearly under pressure today because of that. It's also her first day back after being on holiday for 3 weeks so I'm taking her massive outburst as a combination of those factors. That being said colleagues have said she has zero tolerance and will sack people for pretty much anything.

 

Am I right in thinking that suspension isn't normally used when it's just a misconduct issue? My worry is that my suspension letter will arrive listing gross misconduct as the reason - ok I annoyed her and should have gone to her first to say I was leaving the shop floor but I was literally heaving at the till and just didn't think - does that really amount to gross misconduct? From what I've read on here and other places it clearly doesn't matter whether it's justified or not as I've not worked there for 2 years and can't claim unfair dismissal.

 

The not knowing is what gets me the most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct sadly that you will not have access to the tribunal service :(

 

Unless there is some form of discrimination covered by the single equality act. Sadly does not look that way.

 

Gross misconduct can mean many things, the way employment law resides on is somethign called the "test of reasonableness" If another person could construe your actions as gross misconduct then they can argue that. Employment law is very weak because of this clause.

 

Regardless

 

You do have a right of appeal after the disciplinary if need be and should be done by someone more senior than the disciplining manager.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have less than 2 years service the employer doesn't need to adhere to disciplinary procedure unless your contract specifically states that the disciplinary process is a contractual right - they can simply give you statutory notice to terminate your employment. What does it state in your contract of employment?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sharpz

 

Did you get around to reporting the heat in the store to your manager? You could lodge a grievance, no doubt it has effected other employees too. If your suspension has anything to do with getting a 'drink' and being reprimanded for doing so, then that is wrong.

 

Hopefully they will provide further information on why you have been suspended.

 

Here's information regarding the temperature in the workplace:-

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/index.htm

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/thermal/workers.htm

 

'I work in a shop and the temperate in there was 32 degrees and the heat was making me feel sick and dizzy.'

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the situation certainly seems to be unreasonable it is unfortunately the case that any employee with under 2 years service has no automatic right to discipline and grievance procedures (unless it is specified as a contractual right in the contract of employment.

 

Only if the behaviour of the employer can be proved to be discriminatory (sex, race, religion etc) or if the contract of employment is breaches do they have any right to redress at all.

 

 

Best advice would be to apologise and hope you can keep your job.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the situation certainly seems to be unreasonable it is unfortunately the case that any employee with under 2 years service has no automatic right to discipline and grievance procedures (unless it is specified as a contractual right in the contract of employment.

 

Only if the behaviour of the employer can be proved to be discriminatory (sex, race, religion etc) or if the contract of employment is breaches do they have any right to redress at all.

 

Best advice would be to apologise and hope you can keep your job.

 

 

Not entirely accurate.

 

"

The statutory minimum procedure

6.

Employers are also required to follow a specific statutory minimum

procedure if they are contemplating dismissing an employee or

imposing some other disciplinary penalty that is not suspension on

full pay or a warning. Guidance on this statutory procedure is

provided in paragraphs 26-32. If an employee is dismissed without

the employer following this statutory procedure, and makes a claim

to an employment tribunal, providing they have the necessary

qualifying service and providing they are not prevented from claiming

unfair dismissal by virtue of their age, the dismissal will automatically

be ruled unfair. The statutory procedure is a minimum requirement

and even where the relevant procedure is followed the dismissal

may still be unfair if the employer has not acted reasonably in all

the circumstances."

 

However enforcing this with less than 2 years is difficult without having the access to tribunal. Saying that without 2 years service they have no right to the minimum procedure is an error of fact. They have the right but can not use the tribunal to enforce it.

 

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/l/p/CP01_1.pdf

Edited by SabreSheep
Addition

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There *might* even be a way in some circumstances to mitigate the 2 year rule but you would need a legal professional to do it. If anyone has any more information on hwo accurate this information is it might be of help to others

 

Two years' service not needed if you insist on statutory rights

 

Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd [1996] IRLR 384

 

 

 

Bullying and fear at work can stem from misunderstandings about legal rights and especially about the two years' service rule normally needed to allow an unfair dismissal claim. What is less well known is that employees are protected from day one of employment against dismissal for asserting a statutory legal right.

 

 

This protection comes from section 60A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, introduced in 1993, which makes it automatically unfair to dismiss someone for 'asserting a statutory right'. The statutory rights referred to include the written statement of particulars, itemised pay statement, guarantee payments, maternity rights, Wages Act claims, union victimisation or time off, unauthorised check off deductions and political fund opt outs.

 

 

Section 60 was introduced as a partial response to employers who dismissed employees with less than two years' service who 'caused trouble' by insisting on legal rights, for example, a written statement of employment terms. But what does it mean in practice - and what protection does it give?

 

 

The protection applies where the employee has brought a claim to enforce a right or has alleged that the employer has infringed a right. It is automatically unfair to dismiss the employee for making the claim or allegation.

 

 

The first appeal case on this law has now been reported. Mr Mennell, who had less than two years' service, was asked to sign a changed contract which gave his employers the right to make deductions from pay. He refused and was sacked.

 

 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal said this could be a dismissal for asserting a statutory right. A threat of dismissal to vary the contract so an employer could make deductions is an infringement of the right not to have deductions made without consent.

 

 

It did not matter that no deduction had been made or that no right had actually been infringed. In fact it was not even strictly necessary to establish that the employee actually had any right to infringe.

 

 

The key question is whether the employee, acting in good faith, asserted or claimed to have a relevant statutory right. It does not matter whether the employee had the right, let alone whether it was infringed.

 

 

Mennell's case has been sent back to the Industrial Tribunal to consider these points and to decide the issue which is likely to prove the real stumbling block for employees: was the employee's assertion of a statutory right the reason for the dismissal?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ell-enn's advice here is correct. The employer does not need to adhere to a disciplinary procedure unless it is contractual and they can indeed serve statutory notice to terminate (or pay in lieu).

 

I would always advise employers to dispense of any formal procedure during the first two years unless there was any necessity to follow it (for example if the employee in question could assert they had been discriminated against or had raised a breach of a relevant statutory right).

 

There is no "statutory minimum procedure" that employers are required to adhere to anymore. Statutory procedures were repealed in 2009. Employers are now required to follow "guidance" under the ACAS Code of Practice; but again, this is a non-point due to length of service. The dismissal will not be automatically unfair in these circumstances.

 

Asserting a right not to have wages deducted is a "relevant" statutory right as mentioned above, however unless such a right was asserted prior to the dismissal (or at least prior to the circumstances leading up to dismissal) then logically, and chronologically, the dismissal cannot be linked to that assertion. I do not therefore think that it applies to this scenario.

 

Whilst I understand that the advice given here is with the OP's best interests at heart (even if it is perhaps telling them what they want to hear) I do think that the realistic advice in this situation is to apologise and hope that they are reinstated. Attempting to muddy the waters with misconceived legal arguments is unlikely to be of practical assistance!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually becky, yoru right, I was not aware of the "repeal" So thanks for the info. :)

 

I always try to tell the OPs what they need to hear not what they want to hear, but at the same time, I always like to explore options and If i think I find something I will always present it as what I think it is, like in the case above where I mentioned that it *might* of been a work around and needed other people to confirm and discuss it.

 

Coupled with the fact my past Union work was in an organized workplace, sometimes I have to remember that the rules and regulations we had to work with were negotiated to be much more superior than legal minimums.

 

Anyhow less about me, Do not want to hijack OP's thread

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just like to state the real position so the op doesn't get their hopes up that there might be some process they are entitled to. It's not a nice situation for employees with under 2 years service and I really feel for them as many employers use it unashamedly :(

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

I think the two year thing should be scrapped or certain things made exempt from the 2 year rule.

 

But alas that is not so

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Becky2585

 

Any thoughts on the Health & Safety aspect regarding the OP going to get a drink and not feeling well because of the heat in the shop and being shouted at for doing so?

 

I don't think a pleasant person would have acted in the way that the manager did, but I don't see anything legally actionable there. I think it's just a case that the manager has a total lack of people skills and disregard for their employees' feelings, but that's often typical amongst management :)

 

16 degrees or higher is the ambient working temperature which is recommended by the HSE, but there isn't any prescribed legal minimum or maximum temperature, and therefore I do think trying to mount an argument on this basis is unlikely to succeed.

 

There is obviously the duty on an employer to take "reasonable care" for their employees' health and safety but logically I can't see that not permitting an employee to have a drink at a certain time would be a breach - what would the ramifications be if the employee didn't have a drink? They would just go thirsty until their next break - it's unlikely that they would keel over and die or suffer any significant problems. Sadly, I think in this situation it would be viewed as an employee choosing to leave their shift and have a drink when they should have waited for their break. It would of course be different if the OP had any type of disability which meant that it was reasonable for them to do so.

 

Don't forget as well that, bizarrely, there's no specific statutory right as such to time off work for being ill!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/health-and-safety/temperature-work-heat-guide-safety-representatives

 

http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/guides-workers/working-extremes-temperature-hot-or-cold

 

 

I don't think a pleasant person would have acted in the way that the manager did, but I don't see anything legally actionable there. I think it's just a case that the manager has a total lack of people skills and disregard for their employees' feelings, but that's often typical amongst management :)

16 degrees or higher is the ambient working temperature which is recommended by the HSE, but there isn't any prescribed legal minimum or maximum temperature, and therefore I do think trying to mount an argument on this basis is unlikely to succeed.

 

There is obviously the duty on an employer to take "reasonable care" for their employees' health and safety but logically I can't see that not permitting an employee to have a drink at a certain time would be a breach - what would the ramifications be if the employee didn't have a drink? They would just go thirsty until their next break - it's unlikely that they would keel over and die or suffer any significant problems. Sadly, I think in this situation it would be viewed as an employee choosing to leave their shift and have a drink when they should have waited for their break. It would of course be different if the OP had any type of disability which meant that it was reasonable for them to do so.

 

Don't forget as well that, bizarrely, there's no specific statutory right as such to time off work for being ill!

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are guidelines, sadly as becky says there's no legal maximum or minimum, only what is "reasonable" (and that's open to much interpretation)

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thanks for all your help. I still haven't received a suspension letter but hopefully it will come tomorrow and state the exact reason for my suspension (whether it's misconduct or gross misconduct). I've been ill since that evening so I'm assuming it's a bug or something like that - I know what you're saying about the mix/max temperature and I don't think it was the heat that caused it necessarily, I definitely think it exacerbated how I felt though and this is what my manager doesn't seem to understand.

 

She had spoken to me on the one occasion about leaving the floor without permission but I'm finding it difficult to accept her reaction to what happened and the total lack of understanding of what I was trying to tell her - I wasn't leaving the floor to skive off, I covered the til and legged it to the back because I thought I was going to be sick.

 

Is that really unreasonable or am I seeing myself through rose-tinted glasses. I understand that she initially may have thought it was a repeat of the time she had spoken to me but she wouldn't even listen to an explanation as she was too busy shouting.

 

Having thought it all through a bit more calmly I remember she said that everyone was hot and asked if I was saying I couldn't work the rest of my shift. I said I didn't think I could because of how sick I felt and that's when she suspended me. Almost as though if I had said I could work the rest of my shift she wouldn't have?

 

God knows, I'm just twisting myself in knots worrying about it all now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...