burchell v bhs case

tonycree

ok here goes
this is a difficult one to post here
but someone might have some good advice...
i was sacked
i say unreasonably
my employers say reasonably
there is no conclusive cctv footage
there was no physical evidence provided of the alleged damage
and there was no photographic evidence either...
2 solicitors have said that the bhs v burchell case
sets out the guidelines for reasonableness for employers,
i say it's a load of tosh -
basically it says
an employer does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that an offence took place
only that at a given moment in time
they believed it may have happened
and as long as they did a reasonable investigation
everything falls their way...
this all seems subjective to me -
if i was on civvy street
the police would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt
my guilt
at what point do i not become a civilian?
how can the employment law be different to civil law?
i have it in my mind to continue with my claim and case
thru' the tribunal, myself
and if and when i lose
take it to the high court for it to be brought into line...
or am i missing something here?
what do you think my chances are of getting the playing field levelled?
thousands of pounds are at stake here
mainly my costs....
any feedback welcome...
i have about 5 days to decide...
thanks in advance...
T.

Conor_3

To be honest, the Burchell vs BHS case sets the legal precidence so you've got very little chance as long as they've followed their disciplinary procedures properly. Civil law has always not required the same level of proof as criminal law because at the end of the day, a civil action is not going to result in anyone going to prison - at best it ends up being a monetary thing.

I've just a small request. Could you at least try to post like you went to school? Your post was extremely hard reading.

londondulwich

For an employer to use the case successfully it has to have been reasonable for them to have come to the conclusion they did.

The Tribunal will ask whether the decision the employers took was within a range of reasonable responses.

If the basis for the decision is unverifiable but there is no other plausible explanation, then the case takes effect.

If , however, the basis for the decision is flawed, perhaps because the employer ignored certain information or omitted to ask for details which would have corrected their decision, and it was unreasonable for them to have done so, then they cannot rely on the case as a defence.

londondulwich

For an employer to use the case successfully it has to have been reasonable for them to have come to the conclusion they did.

The Tribunal will ask whether the decision the employers took was within a range of reasonable responses.

If the basis for the decision is unverifiable but there is no other plausible explanation, then the case takes effect.

If , however, the basis for the decision is flawed, perhaps because the employer ignored certain information or omitted to ask for details which would have corrected their decision, and it was unreasonable for them to have done so, then they cannot rely on the case as a defence.

tonycree

i took all the emotion out of it
and just tried to present the facts,
ironically,
to make it easier to understand !!

thanks londondulwich

laws can be changed
but I've only a few days to convince a solicitor,
if I can find one...

Oldernotwiser

tonycree wrote: »

...
2 solicitors have said that the bhs v burchell case
sets out the guidelines for reasonableness for employers,
i say it's a load of tosh -


T.

There's not much point in employing solicitors if you don't take their advice. Hunting round for a solicitor who agrees with your point of view will only increase your costs.

LittleVoice

tonycree wrote: »

how can the employment law be different to civil law?
i

Employment law is part of civil law isn't it?

CFC

Tony, please please do not waste your money in pursuing this or in seeking to find a solicitor to take it on. By all means appeal through the internal appeals process, though, if you have not already done so.

If you are saying that this is a malicious disciplinary designed to 'get rid of you' and that there was in fact no damage to any property owned by the company, you need to raise this in the appeal hearing as a concern, and see what your employer's response is. Once you have exhausted the appeals process, then an industrial tribunal would be your next step, and you would be wasting your money employing a solicitor to represent you.

A termination of an employee is not like a criminal law case; the employer just needs to be acting reasonably. What does reasonable mean? It means that an average,normal, non-involved person would feel that their actions were reasonable. The investigation needs to be reasonably conducted, the conclusion the employer comes to needs to be reasonable, and the response needs to be reasonable.

The employer does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in a criminal case.

I understand you are hurt and upset by whatever has happened and you believe that it is deeply unfair. Possibly the employer's actions are unfair to you because you are innocent of the allegations - but that doesn't necessarily stop it being a reasaonable response.

tonycree

CFC, I have appealed about the decision through the company procedures but I feel that, it did not matter what my version of events were, they had made a decision and would not relent on it.
It took them 5 weeks to approach me about the incident.
5 weeks for them to do the research on the legal standpoint of getting rid of me. I didn't even know what the meeting was about. 5 weeks for something trumped up as gross misconduct.
I would have thought that a gross misconduct case would be dealt with quicker than that; within a day or two of it happening, so memories are fresh. On the cctv footage there is another person
walking past me. Unfortunately, I don't recognise him but this person was not identified, refered to or interviewed by the company. Don't you think it would be reasonable for the company to identify and interview him. Or would that be a witness for me and they wouldn't want that now, would they!!
Also, in the investigations, the investigating'officer' put the idea of what happened into the minds of the interviewees. By the way, they work days and I worked nights - another anomoly.
And it goes on and on and on....
They screwed me
I know I was screwed
They know I know they screwed me.

CFC

Tony, the problem is that it is not about right and wrong.

It is about whether the employer has acted reasonably in the circumstances. Now, I don't know enough about the circumstances to say whether it was reasonable or not; but before you go spending any money ensure you are absolutely clear about the difference between 'reasonable' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a civil as opposed to a criminal case.

If you have exhausted the internal appeal procedures, then you may be able to go to an employment tribunal. This will cost you nothing generally. There are time limits, so you will be best looking at it online and seeing if you fall within the timelimits.

Mark7799

CFC wrote: »

A termination of an employee is not like a criminal law case; the employer just needs to be acting reasonably. What does reasonable mean? It means that an average,normal, non-involved person would feel that their actions were reasonable. The investigation needs to be reasonably conducted, the conclusion the employer comes to needs to be reasonable, and the response needs to be reasonable.

Sorry if this is inappropriate but that line made me think this is a hell of a strict company to work for if you do anything wrong:o