help. Xmas do... suspected of doing DRUGS!!!!!!

pitkin2020

read the OP he has said that the manager has spread the rumor of him being a druggie that can be considered as being victimisation and could effect his position within the buiness with regards to the way others treat him.

And poet i dont care wheter you agree with my post, too many times has that person made an assumption from what others have typed its just ridiculous he/she is purely here to act as a troll, im pretty sure if i started a new thread titled "the sky is blue" he/she would have to chime in with no its black.
At the end of the day you can only give your opinion on what the OP has put not what they HAVENT put.

rupee99

Zazen999 wrote: »

They don't need any - it's not a prosecution. They just have to believe that it happened.

In front of an Industrial Tribunal, they will need to establish that their belief is based on a balance of probabilities.

(EDIT The rest of the matters brought up in your later post are indicative of what will assist the IT in establishing what the Balance of Probabilities are and whether the employer has undertaken sufficient steps to assess them and has acted accordingly, but it is wrong to say that the employer does not require any proof, it is just the standard of proof is much lower)

robredz

I would read and digest post 249 by Zazen999, and prepare a defence or rebuttal based on the information there, and make sure your side of it is better than balance of probabilities this is a much more helpful critical analasys of possibilities than the views of certain others.

poet123

We all make assumptions from what others type, but we all need to realise that no one presents themselves in a bad light when telling this kind of story. You do have to read between the lines.

There are always two sides to it, and Annihilator is fond of playing devils advocate, maybe he goes too far, but the way to deal with that is not to stoop to that level yourself.

It doesn't trouble me that you do not care if I disagree with your post,my point was made to highlight the fact that you, and others, who purport to take the high moral ground with this particular poster, have tunnel vision when it comes to others/yourself displaying similar traits.

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

It doesn't trouble me that you do not care if I disagree with your post,my point was made to highlight the fact that you, and others, who purport to take the high moral ground with this particular poster, have tunnel vision when it comes to others/yourself displaying similar traits.

Good point. In other words, to take the moral high ground, it is not sufficient for the other poster to be bad.

wuckfit

poet123 wrote: »

We all make assumptions from what others type, but we all need to realise that no one presents themselves in a bad light when telling this kind of story. You do have to read between the lines.

There are always two sides to it, and Annihilator is fond of playing devils advocate, maybe he goes too far, but the way to deal with that is not to stoop to that level yourself.

It doesn't trouble me that you do not care if I disagree with your post,my point was made to highlight the fact that you, and others, who purport to take the high moral ground with this particular poster, have tunnel vision when it comes to others/yourself displaying similar traits.

To be fair, Anililator almost invariably breaks the "be nice to other moneysavers" with each first post on any topic. In addition he makes malicious assumptions and then quite frankly defamatory comments about almost every OP he replies to.

robredz

wuckfit wrote: »

To be fair, Anililator almost invariably breaks the "be nice to other moneysavers" with each first post on any topic. In addition he makes malicious assumptions and then quite frankly defamatory comments about almost every OP he replies to.

He belongs under a bridge waiting for three billy goats gruff, or with the Orcish Horde at Ogremor, end of. There is critical analasys, there is cross examination, there is showing what can be the opposing point of view, to the OP's standpoint and open hostility, the Anihilator usually seems to fall into the latter category.

ckerrd

Where are we with the timescale of all these proceedings I seem to have lost the details of the process?

When is the meeting?

pitkin2020

op doesnt go back to work till 4th jan (factory reopens) so will be adter that date

poet123

robredz wrote: »

He belongs under a bridge waiting for three billy goats gruff, or with the Orcish Horde at Ogremor, end of. There is critical analasys, there is cross examination, there is showing what can be the opposing point of view, to the OP's standpoint and open hostility, the Anihilator usually seems to fall into the latter category.

Having an opposing viewpoint, and even expressing it badly/uncompromisingly does not necessarily make him a troll. Tbh I dislike the way that term is bandied about on here as the ultimate refuge of those who cannot be bothered to debate, or those who don't like the style in which another poster debates, or simply those who don't like plain speaking.

I agree that the poster in question sometimes crosses the line into open hostility, but even that does not make him a troll if he believes what he writes is/could be true. Resorting to name calling will not make him behave any better, nor insult any less, and returning the compliment does not further the debate.

Returning to the OP, I don't think the situation is as clear cut as many would have us think by their answers. Yes, there are procedures to be followed, but the outcome will be determined not by procedure, but by those who enact those procedures, and how they view the OP and his past performance/behaviour within the company.

Put bluntly, those you step on, on the way up, have a habit of stepping on you when you are down. Maybe Annihilator put that point (and others) less politely than I have done, but in essence his message was the same.