Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

coolcait

Anihilator wrote: »

A question to Dvardyshadow and robredz.

Don't relate it to OP

You have an vulnerable parent, or vulnerable child whom you are paying £10-20 an hour for care for.

You find out that the carer has twice been accused of theft previously and that in the latest case the police actually told the firm she most likely did it.

What would you think? would you be happy?

Ok lets add a new dimension.

You are actually robbed by this person. What would your reaction be?

Fair or not I wouldnt want the OP caring for a relative and I would be quite annoyed that a care company would send her out given the history.

I believe that the situation is actually that the supposed 'vulnerable parent' or 'vulnerable child' is the common denominator in all of the thefts mentioned - not the OP.

Let's call the vulnerable parent or child 'Miss A'.

It appears that a carer who previously worked with Miss A was accused of taking items from the mail. We are told that this was 'dealt with by the police' but we don't know the outcome:


"Mrs B said there had been a previous problem with Miss A carer about 3 years ago when items went missing from the post, however this was a different company and dealt with by the police" [Mrs B is the neighbour]

Miss A is also the source of the supposed information that only the OP or the butcher could have stolen the bra. She says that she only let those two people in. Leave aside the fact that other people could have access to that communal hallway, it would appear that the OP's employers have overlooked the fact that Miss A was also present between the time the package was delivered, and the time Mrs B got home to find her puchase missing. (This being the same Miss A who was previously part of an event involving items going missing from the post):

"Miss A has said that she only let myself and the butcher in. Mrs B has said the others in the flats were at work. Who's to say they didnt return, or other people that have keys to the main door - maintenance and family etc. I would have the police would be looking into this."

Miss A is the only person to admit having handled the package containg the bra. She picked up the post 'as normal' and, by her own account, believed that it contained something. This being the same Miss A whose previous carer was accused of stealing items from the post. The same post which is 'normally' picked up by Miss A:


"Miss A picked up the morning post and newspapers as normal and that there was a packet for Mrs B. Miss A has told Mrs B that when she picked it up it had felt like there was something in the packet. When Mrs B came home from work the packet was empty apart from an advice note"


The allegations of missing money also come from Miss A. And appear to be unsubstantiated by anything other than her claim that it is in fact missing.


Under those circumstances, I wonder if anyone bothered to check Miss A's underwear drawer? Or check if she made an appearance in any other accusations of 'theft'?

Apart from the very clear procedural breaches throughout the employer's handling of this situation, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to point the finger at Miss A. Difficult though it would be for the OP's employer to make that accusation towards a client, it does suggest that there is actually reasonable doubt that the OP was guilty.

On the balance of probablities, therefore, as an employer I would not have felt that there were reasonable grounds for dismissing the OP.


I would have felt that there were reasonable grounds for not sending my staff to work with Miss A, and tactfully suggesting to her that she find another organisation to provide for her care needs. As she had obviously done following the allegations against her previous carer.

coolcait

diggerman123 wrote: »

sorry , but why change the heading . what was the original heading ? and when did u change it ? followed this from beginning . i think you may be stretching the truth .........................................
by the way this is my opinion and if you dont like it i apologise but you asked for opinions by coming on this site. not really bothered whether you like it or not , only you know the truth and only you have a conscience.

As a regular poster on the Bankruptcy board, I will not be bumping your thread on 'moral support'. My stance on those who troll that board is well documented - including my views on the type of troll which has most success on there.

I note that the username 'diggerman123' is shown as having joined MSE in January 2010. This thread was started in April 2009. I admire your willpower in following the thread all this time without commenting - especially if you were perturbed by the title in some way.

Having read through the thread (as far as your post) in one sitting, I was initially confused about the thread title. I wondered if 'the police' was a joky reference to the managers. However, when I reached the part about the OP actually going to an iterview with the police, I realised that the thread title had probably been changed to reflect the changing circumstances.

This thread seems to have attracted a disproportioinate number of trolls. I wonder if it's just the same person with different names? Or is it just the troll sense that someone is hurting and vulnerable, so they can go in for the kill?

by the way this is my opinion and if you dont like it i apologise but you asked for opinions by coming on this site. not really bothered whether you like it or not - as they say.

coolcait

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

Happy belated new year everyone!

Just thought id give you an update and ask a question!

Finally got the documents through from the company acting on behalf of my former employer! The deadline was the 28th December and I received them today.

I had to send them a letter to remind them, Got a phonecall apologising - It had been passed to someone else to deal with and got lost in communication!

Anyway, they cam this morning and theres a few documents that are not related to the case. Actually, the one of the examples in what I mentioned in the very first post of this thread!



Its a copy of the letter to head office saying im refusing to do the actual hours etc. They have also included screenshots from my facebook account taken on the 29/11/09 - 6 months after my dismissal showing comments such as -

"im sooo tied, bed shortly it think! before another 10 hour shift tomorrow, then gotta work saturday too. Roll on Sunday!"

"Just on a break at work. Here till 9pm tonight"

As this is totally unrelated to my claim for unfair dismissal, can they use such documents? If they can, I kept a diary of events back then, however is it too late for me to submit them? As none of this was related to my claim, I didnt put these documents in my bundle.

Another thing that really annoyed me, is a copy of notes from work where they spoke to the PC investigation.

"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.

Got a fun few days going over the documents with a fine tooth comb now!

I think the Facebook stuff is entirely relevant to your claim for unfair dismissal.

One of your reasons for leaving (and one of the reasons why 'constructive dismissal' and 'indirect sex discrimination' were mentioned earlier) is that your family circumstances limit the hours you can work.

Your Facebook comments show that, with your new employer, your have worked 10 hour shifts, and have worked until 9pm on at least one occasion.

Their argument will be - if you can work those hours with your new employer, you could have worked the hours offered by your previous employer. Completely undermining your claims.

It may be that your circumstances have changed in the months since your previous job ended. It may be that your current employer has 'family friendly' policies', allowing you the flexibility to work longer hours when your partner's shift pattern makes this possible. There may be other perfectly valid reasons why it was genuinely impossible for you to work the hours offered by your previous employer, but you can work unsociable hours with your current employer.

You need to have that quite clear in your head. This Facebook information, and old emails, is not an irrelevance to your case, it is a key point - and one which you will have to address face on if you want to rebut it.

As for the comment made in the police report, I think it would be helpful if you could get a look at his original report in full. I know that when I was reading the thread, I had my head in my hands when you were going on about the missing bra not being your size.

Although it's an understandable response to an allegation which seems ludicrous to you ('jockstrap? Why would I steal a jockstrap?! I'm a woman!!!'), it doesn't really mean very much. People steal things which they couldn't possibly use themselves, and them sell or pass them onto someone else who could use them.

So, it's possible that the police report was simply making that point

The same, of course, holds true for Miss A. If anyone had thought about checking her underwear drawer, but didn't find the bra, then they could have pointed out that she might have passed it onto someone else.

I do find it fascinating that Miss A has managed to escape all indications of suspicion in bra-gate - despite her being the person who normally collect the mail; the person who knew that there was something in the package; the person who has detailed the (supposedly) only people who could have come into the hallway (I take it that the post is collected from somewhere outside the hallway - otherwise who let the postman in?); and the person who has made the (apparently unsubstantiated) allegations of the other 'thefts'.

HTH

sexyeyes83

coolcait wrote: »

I believe that the situation is actually that the supposed 'vulnerable parent' or 'vulnerable child' is the common denominator in all of the thefts mentioned - not the OP.

Let's call the vulnerable parent or child 'Miss A'.

It appears that a carer who previously worked with Miss A was accused of taking items from the mail. We are told that this was 'dealt with by the police' but we don't know the outcome:

"Mrs B said there had been a previous problem with Miss A carer about 3 years ago when items went missing from the post, however this was a different company and dealt with by the police" [Mrs B is the neighbour]

Miss A is also the source of the supposed information that only the OP or the butcher could have stolen the bra. She says that she only let those two people in. Leave aside the fact that other people could have access to that communal hallway, it would appear that the OP's employers have overlooked the fact that Miss A was also present between the time the package was delivered, and the time Mrs B got home to find her puchase missing. (This being the same Miss A who was previously part of an event involving items going missing from the post):

"Miss A has said that she only let myself and the butcher in. Mrs B has said the others in the flats were at work. Who's to say they didnt return, or other people that have keys to the main door - maintenance and family etc. I would have the police would be looking into this."

Miss A is the only person to admit having handled the package containg the bra. She picked up the post 'as normal' and, by her own account, believed that it contained something. This being the same Miss A whose previous carer was accused of stealing items from the post. The same post which is 'normally' picked up by Miss A:


"Miss A picked up the morning post and newspapers as normal and that there was a packet for Mrs B. Miss A has told Mrs B that when she picked it up it had felt like there was something in the packet. When Mrs B came home from work the packet was empty apart from an advice note"


The allegations of missing money also come from Miss A. And appear to be unsubstantiated by anything other than her claim that it is in fact missing.


Under those circumstances, I wonder if anyone bothered to check Miss A's underwear drawer? Or check if she made an appearance in any other accusations of 'theft'?

Apart from the very clear procedural breaches throughout the employer's handling of this situation, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to point the finger at Miss A. Difficult though it would be for the OP's employer to make that accusation towards a client, it does suggest that there is actually reasonable doubt that the OP was guilty.

On the balance of probablities, therefore, as an employer I would not have felt that there were reasonable grounds for dismissing the OP.

I would have felt that there were reasonable grounds for not sending my staff to work with Miss A, and tactfully suggesting to her that she find another organisation to provide for her care needs. As she had obviously done following the allegations against her previous carer.

Hi,

Many thanks for your reply. Thats pretty much spot on what I mentioned in my appeal notice.

“xxxx advised that Miss A's regular carer had been dismissed and Miss A had been upset about this and didn’t like different carers. Miss A had become quite aggressive on the phone when calling the office” Based on this information and the fact that Mrs A deals with the post each morning, is there not the possibility she could have taken the bra to place the blame on the carer?
Also the fact that Mrs A phoned up the office to find out “what did I think about it?” Was Miss A spoken to regarding this allegation and a statement taken? If so, why wasn’t a copy provided to myself?

Ive also found quite a few discrepancies in the neighbors statement that was sent in.

sexyeyes83

coolcait wrote: »

I think the Facebook stuff is entirely relevant to your claim for unfair dismissal.

One of your reasons for leaving (and one of the reasons why 'constructive dismissal' and 'indirect sex discrimination' were mentioned earlier) is that your family circumstances limit the hours you can work.

Your Facebook comments show that, with your new employer, your have worked 10 hour shifts, and have worked until 9pm on at least one occasion.

Their argument will be - if you can work those hours with your new employer, you could have worked the hours offered by your previous employer. Completely undermining your claims.

It may be that your circumstances have changed in the months since your previous job ended. It may be that your current employer has 'family friendly' policies', allowing you the flexibility to work longer hours when your partner's shift pattern makes this possible. There may be other perfectly valid reasons why it was genuinely impossible for you to work the hours offered by your previous employer, but you can work unsociable hours with your current employer.

You need to have that quite clear in your head. This Facebook information, and old emails, is not an irrelevance to your case, it is a key point - and one which you will have to address face on if you want to rebut it.

As for the comment made in the police report, I think it would be helpful if you could get a look at his original report in full. I know that when I was reading the thread, I had my head in my hands when you were going on about the missing bra not being your size.

Although it's an understandable response to an allegation which seems ludicrous to you ('jockstrap? Why would I steal a jockstrap?! I'm a woman!!!'), it doesn't really mean very much. People steal things which they couldn't possibly use themselves, and them sell or pass them onto someone else who could use them.

So, it's possible that the police report was simply making that point

The same, of course, holds true for Miss A. If anyone had thought about checking her underwear drawer, but didn't find the bra, then they could have pointed out that she might have passed it onto someone else.

I do find it fascinating that Miss A has managed to escape all indications of suspicion in bra-gate - despite her being the person who normally collect the mail; the person who knew that there was something in the package; the person who has detailed the (supposedly) only people who could have come into the hallway (I take it that the post is collected from somewhere outside the hallway - otherwise who let the postman in?); and the person who has made the (apparently unsubstantiated) allegations of the other 'thefts'.

HTH

When I applied for the job, on the letter I sent it it stated

The only problem is due to myself doing the school run on most days I would only be available to work office hours 9am till 3pm everyday without a lunch break to make up 30 hours. Currently I only work school hours and additional evenings and weekends when my partner is off work.

Ive still got the original letter and also the employer sent a copy of this within their ET bundle.
Upon re-instatement they wanted me to work two days 9-5 and one day 10-5. I would be informed of my shifts on a weekly basis and the shifts could change at short notice to provide emergency cover.

My new employer is very family friendly and flexible with shifts. Every Friday I write on next weeks rota which shifts and hours I can do. The 10 hour shift mentioned was on my day off, and the evening work would have been when my partner either came off a night shift or finished work at 2pm, allowing me to work 4pm-9pm.
Up until xmas I worked a few extra shifts when my partner came home from work to make up some of the money I lost whilst un-employed for a couple of months.

Just to clarify on one point though, It was a seperate client that had the money go missing. That was unrelated to the bra incident. The police looked into the money that went missing in January 2009 and came back saying it could have been 4 or 5 people that had the oppurtunity and the case was closed. It was only re-opened when the bra incident came up.

Again, Many thanks for your helpful replies. Its really appreciated along with the majority of other replies in this thread.

DVardysShadow

coolcait wrote: »

...

I do find it fascinating that Miss A has managed to escape all indications of suspicion in bra-gate - despite her being the person who normally collect the mail; the person who knew that there was something in the package; the person who has detailed the (supposedly) only people who could have come into the hallway (I take it that the post is collected from somewhere outside the hallway - otherwise who let the postman in?); and the person who has made the (apparently unsubstantiated) allegations of the other 'thefts'.

But Miss A is a vulnerable person, so by definition can only be a victim, never a perpetrator.

coolcait

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

When I applied for the job, on the letter I sent it it stated



Ive still got the original letter and also the employer sent a copy of this within their ET bundle.
Upon re-instatement they wanted me to work two days 9-5 and one day 10-5. I would be informed of my shifts on a weekly basis and the shifts could change at short notice to provide emergency cover.

My new employer is very family friendly and flexible with shifts. Every Friday I write on next weeks rota which shifts and hours I can do. The 10 hour shift mentioned was on my day off, and the evening work would have been when my partner either came off a night shift or finished work at 2pm, allowing me to work 4pm-9pm.
Up until xmas I worked a few extra shifts when my partner came home from work to make up some of the money I lost whilst un-employed for a couple of months.

Just to clarify on one point though, It was a seperate client that had the money go missing. That was unrelated to the bra incident. The police looked into the money that went missing in January 2009 and came back saying it could have been 4 or 5 people that had the oppurtunity and the case was closed. It was only re-opened when the bra incident came up.

Again, Many thanks for your helpful replies. Its really appreciated along with the majority of other replies in this thread.

It sounds like there are very good reasons why you are able to occasionally work some 'unsociable' shifts for your current employer, but would have been unable to work the specific daytime shifts which your previous employer wanted you to do if they 'reinstated' you.

It's also clear that your personal circumstances haven't changed. What has changed is that you now have an employer who is willing to be flexible in arranging shifts, organising them in advance.

In itself, that demonstrates areas where your previous employer may not have followed best practice.

All of that is easy enough for you and I to figure out while we're just 'chatting' on a message board. If you had gone to the Tribunal thinking that the Facebook stuff was irrelevant, and then heard the other side's lawyers saying 'clearly sexyeyes is not tied to working certain hours, as she claimed. Here is evidence that she can work different hours', you might have been shocked into silence!

At least now you know the way the other side might be thinking.

Thank you for clarifying that Miss A wasn't involved in previous allegations of theft against you. That will be an area which the other side will try to exploit - as some posters on here have done. From that point of view, those posts may be helpful to you as they will make you think about the circumstances of the other accusations.

coolcait

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But Miss A is a vulnerable person, so by definition can only be a victim, never a perpetrator.

I'd love to see Miss Marple challenge that view - and Miss A.

I would argue that, as a vulnerable person, Miss A may not be aware of the implications and consequences of things that she does. Nevertheless, she may behave in a way which society frowns upon (for example taking items from other people's mail).

But, I suspect you're playing Devil's Advocate on this one, so I won't take the thread any further off topic

blue_monkey_2

In reagrds to the hours.

The OP might not have been able to get carers for her children at short notice but when she went off and found another job after being out of work for so long her husband, in this time, might have been able to change his hours, or he might have had some paid time off (holidays) so the OP could so some overtime, she might also have been able to sort out different childcare arrangements for the NEW job also.

I feel it is entirely irrelvant, she was contracted to work specific hours and they offered a job knowing there was no way she could take it as she had already stated she could not work those hours.

I see that the OP has already said her husband changed his shifts because the new employer is flexible.

I am tired, sorry if this does not make sense tonight, LOL.

coolcait

blue_monkey wrote: »

In reagrds to the hours.

The OP might not have been able to get carers for her children at short notice but when she went off and found another job after being out of work for so long her husband, in this time, might have been able to change his hours, or he might have had some paid time off (holidays) so the OP could so some overtime, she might also have been able to sort out different childcare arrangements for the NEW job also.

I feel it is entirely irrelvant, she was contracted to work specific hours and they offered a job knowing there was no way she could take it as she had already stated she could not work those hours.

I see that the OP has already said her husband changed his shifts because the new employer is flexible.

I am tired, sorry if this does not make sense tonight, LOL.

I agree with everything you say - except for the 'irrelevant' part.

When I first saw the post about the Facebook extracts, I immediately thought 'the other side is positioning themselves for a defence on the grounds that the OP is not as restricted as she says she is when it comes to the hours she works, therefore her grounds for constructive/unfair dismissal don't hold water'.

So, IMO, it was important for the OP to be able to rebut that approach, and have considered her counter arguments to do so.

Which, as her posts show, she is now in a position to do - and is now aware of the way the other side might be thinking/working.

I know what you mean about feeling tired though! I don't think the weather helps :mad: