Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

DVardysShadow

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

"PC X searched the premises but did not find the bra, however he believes sexyeyes may have given it to someone" - I think its disgusting that he could make such a comment to my work.

Put in a complaint to the police. It will do no good of course, because the police are never found to have done wrong.

sexyeyes83

Thanks DV, this was the actual note in the file.

1400hrs I rang DC xxx to see if there was any progress on sexyeyes, he said he had spoken with sexyeyes on the 28.04.09 she had been arrested and bailed for theft. A female officer body searched sexyeyes and DC xxx searched her house the bra was not found and was not right size for her, DC xxx believes she could have passed it on to someone else.

So even before the investigation took place he was telling my company he thought I was guilty. I am extremely annoyed about this (that the nice way of putting it).

The more I look through the bundle, the more shocked I am. Letters they say they sent me which I never received - one saying that my probabtion was being extended by 3 months and I needed to attended a meeting - never received the letter, never knew my probation had been extended and no-one ever mentioned a meeting! This was way back in mid 2008.

Also letters the MD said he had sent me during the investigation but I never received - theres no copies of them within the bundle.

If they can use documents and such like from 2008, prior to any of this happening and not relevant to the unfair dismissal case, that opens up a new can of worms. Im just glad I kept notes about everything that happened at work back then that I can fall back on.

robredz

make sure you stress that you have not had ALL the relevant evidence from your employer As per

"Also letters the MD said he had sent me during the investigation but I never received - theres no copies of them within the bundle."

and that possibly wrongful assumptions due to misleading comments by the police were made. good luck. At least you haven't had any more useful comments from "Dr Death" yet.

Anihilator

I think your case is severly impacted by the police officers comments to them. In view of these comments its entirely reasonable to see why they felt justification was present for dismissal.

Whether the police followed through on this is irrelevent as they had the firm believe that you were guilty on the balance of it to dismiss.

At the very least if you win - and thats going to be difficult - your compensation is going to be extremely limited.

The Facebook comments I dont see the relevance of unless its to try and suggest you were posting whilst you should have been working. I.e in a service users or home or such.

Also why are these documents not relevent? If they demonstrate poor performance etc or questionable activity they are.

sexyeyes83

robredz wrote: »

make sure you stress that you have not had ALL the relevant evidence from your employer As per

"Also letters the MD said he had sent me during the investigation but I never received - theres no copies of them within the bundle."

and that possibly wrongful assumptions due to misleading comments by the police were made. good luck. At least you haven't had any more useful comments from "Dr Death" yet.

Thank you. Im going to go through everything properly with my partner tonight and make a list of things.

robredz

The police were remiss to say anything to the employer whilst investigations were ongoing, and certainly as they had insufficient evidence to charge her. Anihilator, are you suggesting she sues the police for damages due to their incompetence leading the employer to dismiss? After all where they have messed up with illegally sited speed traps they have been liable for consequential loss, refund of fines, removal of points, insurance premium increases, and other damages where someone has lost a job through it. You are enough to make a manic depressive top themselves.

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

I think your case is severly impacted by the police officers comments to them. In view of these comments its entirely reasonable to see why they felt justification was present for dismissal.

Whether the police followed through on this is irrelevent as they had the firm believe that you were guilty on the balance of it to dismiss.

At the very least if you win - and thats going to be difficult - your compensation is going to be extremely limited.

The Facebook comments I dont see the relevance of unless its to try and suggest you were posting whilst you should have been working. I.e in a service users or home or such.

Also why are these documents not relevent? If they demonstrate poor performance etc or questionable activity they are.

The only compensation im after is my losses during this whole situation. Im sure it is going to be difficult. They have a legal team doing all there work, I have myself and my partner.

The facebook comments were posted 6 months after I was dismissed and whilst working for a new company. I believe they are trying to get the point across that I didnt work evenings and could only do school hours when I worked for them, but in my new job im working evenings and 10 hour shifts.

Edit - Oops, thought Anihilator was talking about my ET claim being difficult. Only just twigged what he meant after your post.

Anihilator

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

The only compensation im after is my losses during this whole situation. Im sure it is going to be difficult. They have a legal team doing all there work, I have myself and my partner.

The facebook comments were posted 6 months after I was dismissed and whilst working for a new company. I believe they are trying to get the point across that I didnt work evenings and could only do school hours when I worked for them, but in my new job im working evenings and 10 hour shifts.

But what I am suggesting is the employer isnt responsible for these as legally after being told by a police officer he suspected you were guilty of the offence they had grounds for dismissal.

I see regarding the facebook comments now. Maybe not fully relevent unless you were dishonest with them about stuff to get out of these shifts.

I suspect they are going along the grounds of the police told us she did it, she was dishonest to us on a continuing basis and generally poor as an employee hence the dismissal was fair.

Robredz may have a point about the police being neglient if they passed on the info when they shouldnt have. Only a solicitor could advise on the legalities here.

However in view of their "evidence pack" Im afraid I would suggest the dismissal is legal and fair under employment law and I suspect your case unless you have major procedural problems is destined to fail.

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

The Facebook comments I dont see the relevance of unless its to try and suggest you were posting whilst you should have been working. I.e in a service users or home or such.

Also why are these documents not relevent? If they demonstrate poor performance etc or questionable activity they are.

The use of this police input is particularly damaging to the employer. Although it looks like it puts the employee in the wrong, from a procedural point of view, it is NOT evidence for the disciplinary. Firstly, the OP did not have the opportunity to challenge it originally and secondly, it amounts to hearsay. It was police saying 'we think she did it, we think the evidence would be a bra, but we couldn't find the bra, so she must have hidden it, which shows she is one slippery customer'.

As for facebook, I think if OP can show it was from after dismissal, then employer's use of this in evidence can be seen to be reprehensible.

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

But what I am suggesting is the employer isnt responsible for these as legally after being told by a police officer he suspected you were guilty of the offence they had grounds for dismissal.

I see regarding the facebook comments now. Maybe not fully relevent unless you were dishonest with them about stuff to get out of these shifts.

I suspect they are going along the grounds of the police told us she did it, she was dishonest to us on a continuing basis and generally poor as an employee hence the dismissal was fair.

Robredz may have a point about the police being neglient if they passed on the info when they shouldnt have. Only a solicitor could advise on the legalities here.

However in view of their "evidence pack" Im afraid I would suggest the dismissal is legal and fair under employment law and I suspect your case unless you have major procedural problems is destined to fail.

Thanks for the encouragment, however a couple of points!

I see regarding the facebook comments now. Maybe not fully relevent unless you were dishonest with them about stuff to get out of these shifts.

Really dont understand that point. I was never dishonest about anything and the only time I had to cancel shifts I had a valid excuse - Such as the time my dad was diagnosed with cancer.

I suspect they are going along the grounds of the police told us she did it, she was dishonest to us on a continuing basis and generally poor as an employee hence the dismissal was fair.

Again, I have not been dishonest and certainly wouldnt call myself a poor employee. Im not quite sure where you have gained that from. I always went above and beyond to help, however later on that showed me as being a soft touch.

However in view of their "evidence pack" Im afraid I would suggest the dismissal is legal and fair under employment law and I suspect your case unless you have major procedural problems is destined to fail.

I dont quite understand. Ive posted a couple of bits from the pack on here to ask for advice - I certainly havent posted the entire evidence pack.