Prep for Disciplinary hearing

Options
1…5681011…14

Comments

  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    Options
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »
    Has he admitted to the "prison" remark? I haven't seen that said. How and why has he admitted to it, given they didn't know about it and presumably never asked him about it?

    I don't think the "prison remark" has anything to do with it. It's all about taking a photo of the baby. But he won't confirm that, so I don't know how you are so sure, whether I am an "Amateur Sherlock" or not. I know it's all about what the company choose to believe, but there's no reason to believe the disciplinary panel is even considering the infamous prison remark as any part of the alleged offence. That's what I am trying to confirm.
    Why? It's irrelevant!
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 22 August 2017 at 5:33PM
    Options
    sangie595 wrote: »
    Why? It's irrelevant!

    Given that you claimed

    " And yes, a manager, even in jest, describing their employment as a prison would tend to go down like a lead balloon. I suspect that his admission it was stupid and he recognised that was as much to do with the leniency as anything else."

    then surely it's relevant if the panel are not even suggesting he did such a thing.

    He is either facing a disciplinary charge for taking a photograph of a baby, for sending a text message denigrating the company, or both. How can it be anything but relevant to establish which it is?
  • tommytynan123
    tommytynan123 Posts: 482 Forumite
    Options
    1. He took a photo and admitted it was stupid. He added the words 'prison etc' in jest and sent to one person who does not work for the company. That was also stupid and he has held up his hands to being stupid.
    2. It was reported that he took a photo of a baby. Incorrect. He produced the photo which did not show any part of a baby or company logo.
    3. The mother of baby was/is not involved at all. She was a customer using staff toilets and who left the trolley.
    4. So, in summary and ignoring all the extras, yes he took a photo, added prison and sent to one person via snapchat. He has admitted that and acknowledged he was stupid. He did not take a photo of a baby - proven. Thats it!
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 23 August 2017 at 9:01AM
    Options
    tommytynan123 wrote: »
    1. He took a photo and admitted it was stupid. He added the words 'prison etc' in jest and sent to one person who does not work for the company. That was also stupid and he has held up his hands to being stupid.
    2. It was reported that he took a photo of a baby. Incorrect. He produced the photo which did not show any part of a baby or company logo.
    3. The mother of baby was/is not involved at all. She was a customer using staff toilets and who left the trolley.
    4. So, in summary and ignoring all the extras, yes he took a photo, added prison and sent to one person via snapchat. He has admitted that and acknowledged he was stupid. He did not take a photo of a baby - proven. Thats it!


    But, !!!!!!, did the company know about the text of the message and the word "prison"? If so, how? As you have said nobody saw him write the message or saw the message after it was sent, I can only see that he must have told them this himself. Is this the case? And if this is the case, does it form any part of the "offence" he has been accused of?
  • tommytynan123
    tommytynan123 Posts: 482 Forumite
    Options
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »
    But, !!!!!!, did the company know about the text of the message and the word "prison"? If so, how? As you have said nobody saw him write the message or saw the message after it was sent, I can only see that he must have told them this himself. Is this the case? And if this is the case, does it form any part of the "offence" he has been accused of?

    The word 'prison' was not mentioned on any employee statement or on the initial suspension letter from the company. They were after him for taking a photo of a baby etc and assuming it contained the company logo. The employee statements (now proved to be colluded and false) mentioned the photo of a baby. Thus DPA, disrepute and ''inappropriate behaviour''. It only came to light during the initial hearing when, having been accused of taking a photo of a baby he said ''I didnt' and here is the photo'' They asked about the word and he explained it was in jest to go with the photo which showed a close-up of the trolley (looked like bars)
    Until that point they had no idea the word 'prison' had been used. Also, they had not seen the photo until he produced it.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,175 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Options
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »
    You might find it hard to tell; I doubt most people would.

    Where I work plenty of staff will bring their kids/babies in, especially while on maternity leave to show them off etc. Or while on holiday when they come in to check rotas etc.

    If you think the practice doesn't happen then you obviously don't live in the real world.
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Deleted_User wrote: »
    Where I work plenty of staff will bring their kids/babies in, especially while on maternity leave to show them off etc. Or while on holiday when they come in to check rotas etc.

    If you think the practice doesn't happen then you obviously don't live in the real world.

    Yes, that happens. They tend to bring pushchairs or prams. Not carry them in and put them in supermarket trolleys.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,175 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Options
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »
    Yes, that happens. They tend to bring pushchairs or prams. Not carry them in and put them in supermarket trolleys.

    Depends if they are doing some shopping at the same time. It is a supermarket after all and not a public sector office.
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Deleted_User wrote: »
    Depends if they are doing some shopping at the same time. It is a supermarket after all and not a public sector office.

    Jesus, stop digging. It was obviously a customer, it's been confirmed as being a customer, why on earth are you carrying on with this?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 7,175 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Options
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »
    Jesus, stop digging. It was obviously a customer, it's been confirmed as being a customer, why on earth are you carrying on with this?

    Sounds like there was a H&S as well as a security breach.

    1. Corridor blocked by customer trolley.
    2. Customer left untended and allowed to freely roam staff-only areas and not escorted by a member of staff.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.2K Life & Family
  • 248.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards