Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

Anihilator

This thread has now changed to as whether the OP was unfairly dismissed.

Fairness of Procedure
The test here is whether the employer used a fair procedure and was it reasonable for the employer to finally decide to dismiss the employee once the procedure had been carried out.

Any Employment Tribunal would consider some of the following:
1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
5. Had the employee done this before ?
6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision ? 10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?


This is the test the employer will be looked at upon, now, ignore the fact new information has came out later. The employer can only act on the information they had at the time.

Now what was this

1) Employee was accused of theft
2) Employee had previously been accused of theft
3) Employee was subject to lengthy police investigation
4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone

Now bearing in mind the above I really cant see how the dismissal was unfair, the company could not reasonably have continued to employ her as a care worker.

The fact the police etc months later didnt charge her - didnt change their mind though - isnt really fully relevant.

There seems to be lots of smoke around the OP just no fire as of yet. It is not normal for care workers to continue to have multiple allegations/suspicions around them to this degree of police interest/involvement.

sexyeyes83

bunny123 wrote: »

I work as a care worker and god forbid if it happened to me but i wouldnt air it on here for all to see. there are plenty of places to seek advice from without it being public on here.

I havent made any of my personal details known such as name or location or the names of the companies in which ive worked. I am also seeking advice from other channels.

diggerman123 wrote: »

well said bunny123. my priority would be legal action through proper channels and not from (sometimes) misguided individuals. a lot of good advice on here and a lot of bad. i think you need proper advice and to learn to tell the truth

Forums are there to gain advice, which is exactly what im doing. People mention things that I can look into, so if it is incorrect I wouldnt follow it. Im also taking other legal advice. Its your opinion that im lying. I just hope you never have to go through any kind of situation like this.

unhappy_with_ecar wrote: »

Wow, I've only just come across this thread and I'm stunned to say the least. I think your resolve and determination in sticking with this is remarkable and I wish you luck in March.
Couple of bits that might help - you mentioned that your insurances don't cover any legal help - most household insurance policies provide for around £1000 of legal help. A solicitior can do a lot for that amount and help you prepare.

As an alternative - if you're not keen on no win no fee representation because they take a percentage of your win then ask your employment solicitor about After The Event Insurance and whether you could use that to cover it. Basically its an insurance policy that pays out your costs if you lose and if you win they claim from the other side. Might not work for employment cases, but worth a look and more flexible for you.

I mention it because although you have been amazingly determined and thorough in this whole process, I think representation would be wise. It would be a shame to fall at the final hurdle after coming so far.

Hi,

I looked at no win no fee,but very few places actually take employment cases on. Also on our previous house insurance, we didnt pay for the legal package. I did contact them but there was nothing they could do as all legal help was contained within the package we didnt have.

Ive got an appointment with CAB on Tuesday and also the local law clinic the week later.

wuckfit

Anihilator wrote: »

This thread has now changed to as whether the OP was unfairly dismissed.

Fairness of Procedure
The test here is whether the employer used a fair procedure and was it reasonable for the employer to finally decide to dismiss the employee once the procedure had been carried out.

Any Employment Tribunal would consider some of the following:
1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
5. Had the employee done this before ?
6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision ? 10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?


This is the test the employer will be looked at upon, now, ignore the fact new information has came out later. The employer can only act on the information they had at the time.

Now what was this

1) Employee was accused of theft
2) Employee had previously been accused of theft
3) Employee was subject to lengthy police investigation
4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone

Now bearing in mind the above I really cant see how the dismissal was unfair, the company could not reasonably have continued to employ her as a care worker.

The fact the police etc months later didnt charge her - didnt change their mind though - isnt really fully relevant.

There seems to be lots of smoke around the OP just no fire as of yet. It is not normal for care workers to continue to have multiple allegations/suspicions around them to this degree of police interest/involvement.

This is wrong, Employee had previously been caring for someone who lost some money. Nowhere does it say she was accused of theft.
Anihiator, we're all fed up with you being judge, jury and executioner for every poster that comes looking for help. The majority of your 'advice' is flawed and I'm starting to wonder whether you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about or whether you are deliberately posting misinformation to satisfy some twisted streak.

wuckfit

diggerman123 wrote: »

guilty complex me thinks ......................................
and surprised no one has picked up on this . shame on you all ................

With respect diggerman, this thread has been going on for a long time before you joined the site.
Since you're a n00b, go and read the AUP. BE NICE TO OTHER MONEYSAVERS.
Or are you a reincarnation, circumventing a ban?

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

This thread has now changed to as whether the OP was unfairly dismissed.

Fairness of Procedure
The test here is whether the employer used a fair procedure and was it reasonable for the employer to finally decide to dismiss the employee once the procedure had been carried out.

Any Employment Tribunal would consider some of the following:
1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
5. Had the employee done this before ?
6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision ? 10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?


This is the test the employer will be looked at upon, now, ignore the fact new information has came out later. The employer can only act on the information they had at the time.

Now what was this

1) Employee was accused of theft
2) Employee had previously been accused of theft
3) Employee was subject to lengthy police investigation
4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone

Now bearing in mind the above I really cant see how the dismissal was unfair, the company could not reasonably have continued to employ her as a care worker.

The fact the police etc months later didnt charge her - didnt change their mind though - isnt really fully relevant.

There seems to be lots of smoke around the OP just no fire as of yet. It is not normal for care workers to continue to have multiple allegations/suspicions around them to this degree of police interest/involvement.

1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
No, the hearing was not fair. Discrepancies were raised during the hearing that were never looked into any further.

2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
No evidence at all. A couple of statements that were full of discrepancies
.
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
Not a member of a trade union. Was told at the start of proceedings I could not talk to any staff member, so could not bring another employee in with me. In the end had to settle for one of the managers to sit with me.

4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
Other members of staff mentioned, they were not suspended or treated in the same way.

5. Had the employee done this before ?
No

6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
No

7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
Good sick record and no previous problems.

8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
Later after the appeal they offered me a position working in the office.

9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision?
Yes

10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?
Unknown of there have been any previous incidents, however several parts of acas/company policy were not followed.

1) Employee was accused of theft
Correct

2) Employee had previously been accused of theft
False

3) Employee was subject to lengthy police investigation
In terms of employment, it was not lengthy. Two months at the time of dismissal.

4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
This is not a police officers job. A police officers job is to gather evidence. Its the upto the CPS as to whether there is any substance and a judge and jury to decide on guilt.

5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone
No, the police office advised the company I had been linked to a report, which I knew nothing about.

robredz

@ Anihilator post# 225

4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone

The police were on shaky ground legally here perhaps someone with sound knowledge of rules of evidence may know more, but it seems highly predjudicial to the prosecutions case later if it comes out that a 3rd party (the employer) was party to information or police assumptions before any formal charges had been laid, against Op, and which as it happens never did. Imho the dismissal may be unfair if too much reliance on the police assumptions was used as a core reason for dismissal. Whatever any of us think the OP is taking the correct steps to gain proper impartial advice from outside agencies, and yes she is looking for help and support.

@bunny123 she did and she has,

@diggerman123 you are entitled to your opinion as are we all, but people post here often in desperation, and you have to take them on face value as you do in an advice agency environment (I have advice work experience) bearing in mind their distressed state. Other evidence Will come out as things develop, but where advice is sought it should be non judgemental.

Anihilator is often seen as a bit of a troll, but can be a good devils advocate, if a bit blunt, sometimes he goes too far in open hostility however, and would likely last 30 seconds at a CAB.

Anihilator

wuckfit wrote: »

This is wrong, Employee had previously been caring for someone who lost some money. Nowhere does it say she was accused of theft.
Anihiator, we're all fed up with you being judge, jury and executioner for every poster that comes looking for help. The majority of your 'advice' is flawed and I'm starting to wonder whether you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about or whether you are deliberately posting misinformation to satisfy some twisted streak.

No if you read the whole thread you will also see another historic allegation of theft seperate from this incident or the police comments on file.

On that occasion someone else had opportunity as well so the employer didnt take it further although the OP seemed to be the suspect.

robredz

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
No, the hearing was not fair. Discrepancies were raised during the hearing that were never looked into any further.

2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
No evidence at all. A couple of statements that were full of discrepancies
.
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
Not a member of a trade union. Was told at the start of proceedings I could not talk to any staff member, so could not bring another employee in with me. In the end had to settle for one of the managers to sit with me.

4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
Other members of staff mentioned, they were not suspended or treated in the same way.

5. Had the employee done this before ?
No

6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
No

7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
Good sick record and no previous problems.

8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
Later after the appeal they offered me a position working in the office.

9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision?
Yes

10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?
Unknown of there have been any previous incidents, however several parts of acas/company policy were not followed.

1) Employee was accused of theft
Correct

2) Employee had previously been accused of theft
False

3) Employee was subject to lengthy police investigation
In terms of employment, it was not lengthy. Two months at the time of dismissal.

4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
This is not a police officers job. A police officers job is to gather evidence. Its the upto the CPS as to whether there is any substance and a judge and jury to decide on guilt.

5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone
No, the police office advised the company I had been linked to a report, which I knew nothing about.

Nice rebuttal, especially point 5 the police were meddling in an improper manner here imho.

As I pointed out before, sometimes the Anihilator assumes too much on the negative side, and goes too far, remember he was blown out of the water earlier in the thread when Sexyeyes was told no case to answer. Does he not fancy a battle at the crossroads at Ogremore as part of the Horde?

rupee99

robredz wrote: »

@ Anihilator post# 225

4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
5) Police officer advised OP had been involved in a previous report relating to the care of someone

The police were on shaky ground legally here perhaps someone with sound knowledge of rules of evidence may know more, but it seems highly predjudicial to the prosecutions case later if it comes out that a 3rd party (the employer) was party to information or police assumptions before any formal charges had been laid, against Op, and which as it happens never did. Imho the dismissal may be unfair if too much reliance on the police assumptions was used as a core reason for dismissal. Whatever any of us think the OP is taking the correct steps to gain proper impartial advice from outside agencies, and yes she is looking for help and support.

@bunny123 she did and she has,

@diggerman123 you are entitled to your opinion as are we all, but people post here often in desperation, and you have to take them on face value as you do in an advice agency environment (I have advice work experience) bearing in mind their distressed state. Other evidence Will come out as things develop, but where advice is sought it should be non judgemental.

Anihilator is often seen as a bit of a troll, but can be a good devils advocate, if a bit blunt, sometimes he goes too far in open hostility however, and would likely last 30 seconds at a CAB.

Unfortunately under the disclosure rules relating to people dealing with vulnerable persons changes recently make the police disclose any "material circumstances" that may or may not affect the suitability of people for such work. It is a ridiculous situation and unfounded and unproven accusations, often made by confused people, end up being quite properly disclosed to people who under normal circumstances in most civilised societies would have a right to privacy. However the UK, because of a hysterical paranoia, has long been moving away from protecting such civil liberties believing everyone to be a pedeofile/rapist/thief.

That is a rather long winded way of saying that it is not improper for the employer to have the information or for the police to have disclosed it, as long as it was in the course of their duties.

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

No if you read the whole thread you will also see another historic allegation of theft seperate from this incident or the police comments on file.

On that occasion someone else had opportunity as well so the employer didnt take it further although the OP seemed to be the suspect.

Correct to a degree. That allegaion was made in January, but the police said it could have been 4 or 5 people that had the opportunity. Due to the allegation of the item going missing from the post, the incident from January was re-opened.