Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

Anihilator

But the stuff you have posted could be seen as pretty damning for you. It makes it look like they have a genuine belief you were guilty. This is all they need to dismiss you.

DVardysShadow

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.

Quite pathetic. The employer needs evidence. Any ordinary fool knows that the police start by suspecting someone and then try to produce evidence which stands up in court. A police officer saying he suspects someone is not evidence in any form.

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

But the stuff you have posted could be seen as pretty damning for you. It makes it look like they have a genuine belief you were guilty. This is all they need to dismiss you.

I think there is a distinction between 'genuine belief' and 'reasonable belief' which makes all the difference. It is quite possible to have a genuine belief in the tooth fairy, but is it reasonable?

sexyeyes83

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

Thank you. I certainly can show it was after dismissal. 5 pages of screenshots have been taken and put in the bundle! The date of the earliest message showing in the screenshot is the 8th November. I was dismissed back in June.

Looks like im going to have a few more questions later on after going through the pack.

The main question though, is that they seem to be relying on notes and emails prior to any of this taking place. My claim for unfair dismissal in purly related to when this incident started and they way it was handled. Can they use and talk about incidents that are not related to the claim?

My understanding what that they are there to defend the claim, so should only use documents related to the claim - If that makes sense!

Anihilator

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Quite pathetic. The employer needs evidence. Any ordinary fool knows that the police start by suspecting someone and then try to produce evidence which stands up in court. A police officer saying he suspects someone is not evidence in any form.

And this debate has been had before.

The employment law criteria doesnt involve evidence. Only a genuine belief on the probabilities.

OP says she didnt do it, a service user said she did. Police officer investigating also said she did and investigated her for months.

Don't know about you but I know where my genuine belief on the probability of it would be in this case and I dont think the OP would like it.

The fact the police didnt pursue it wouldnt be relevant.

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

But the stuff you have posted could be seen as pretty damning for you. It makes it look like they have a genuine belief you were guilty. This is all they need to dismiss you.

Prior to dismissal they should have carried out a thorough investigation, which appears they have not, either that or they have not provided me with these documents.

Relying upon what the DC said, if they did, would not in my eyes be classed as a thorough investigation.

Anihilator

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

Prior to dismissal they should have carried out a thorough investigation, which appears they have not, either that or they have not provided me with these documents.

Relying upon what the DC said, if they did, would not in my eyes be classed as a thorough investigation.

No they have to perform a sufficiently thorough investigation based on each case.

Interviews with you, the victim and the investigating officer would pass as such.

sexyeyes83

You have a genuine belief on reasonable grounds and after reasonable investigation that the employee is guilty of the misconduct.

And then after the appeal they offered to re-instate me to the company.

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

And this debate has been had before.

The employment law criteria doesnt involve evidence. Only a genuine belief on the probabilities.

OP says she didnt do it, a service user said she did. Police officer investigating also said she did and investigated her for months.

Don't know about you but I know where my genuine belief on the probability of it would be in this case and I dont think the OP would like it.

The fact the police didnt pursue it wouldnt be relevant.

A genuine belief does not cut it. Genuine belief includes the tooth fairy.

It has to be a REASONABLE belief. REASONABLE. It has to stand up to some sort of logic. A sound bite from police in the middle of an investigation does not cut it.

robredz

For the purposes of a tribunal, imho, the employer is on shaky ground on procedural fairness if they try to use the police tittle tattle as justification, as many people mistrust the police, and may think they were trying to stitch Op up like a kipper ( in the absence of any real evidence deduce guilt by implication or just because she was there at some point in time). So they would have to find other substantive reasons to dismiss. Comments made on a social networking site after the dismissal, would not be allowable evidence to justify the dismissal after the event.