Suspension without getting dismissed?

LittleVoice

In the interest of fairness:

On the other site jumpy wrote, "I did post a thread on another website forum and many posters kept mentioning my dyslexia and eye condition are just excuses."

That could be read as MSE-ers saying that the dyslexia and eye condition were "excuses" in the sense of attempts at explaining away what had happened and not legitimate (which is what I think was written here). However, I accept that it could also mean "just" in the sense of being right or acceptable which was not what was said.

Shall we give her the benefit of the doubt on this? (On reflection, perhaps I'm being too generous.)

(I also noticed that on the other site she said it had been herself who had asked the trainer about the maximum number of bags.)

Sambucus_Nigra

LittleVoice wrote: »

In the interest of fairness:

On the other site jumpy wrote, "I did post a thread on another website forum and many posters kept mentioning my dyslexia and eye condition are just excuses."

That could be read as MSE-ers saying that the dyslexia and eye condition were "excuses" in the sense of attempts at explaining away what had happened and not legitimate (which is what I think was written here). However, I accept that it could also mean "just" in the sense of being right or acceptable which was not what was said.

Shall we give her the benefit of the doubt on this?

(I also noticed that on the other site she said it had been herself who had asked the trainer about the maximum number of bags.)

I think you need to read all the threads.

Bamber19

LittleVoice wrote: »

In the interest of fairness:

On the other site jumpy wrote, "I did post a thread on another website forum and many posters kept mentioning my dyslexia and eye condition are just excuses."

That could be read as MSE-ers saying that the dyslexia and eye condition were "excuses" in the sense of attempts at explaining away what had happened and not legitimate (which is what I think was written here). However, I accept that it could also mean "just" in the sense of being right or acceptable which was not what was said.

Shall we give her the benefit of the doubt on this? (On reflection, perhaps I'm being too generous.)

I think it's just the poster being typically ambiguous.

LittleVoice wrote: »

(I also noticed that on the other site she said it had been herself who had asked the trainer about the maximum number of bags.)

She doesn't... unless she did but has edited it.

LittleVoice

Bamber19 wrote: »

She doesn't... unless she did but has edited it.

post #15 over there includes (my bold emphasis of course),

. Mentioned the training issue with my colleagues and I raising the point to the external trainer that what would stop us to putting down 9 bags everytime we use them. My union rep also works on checkouts and she was on a different training group to me and her group raised this as well. The trainer said in words like 'nothing, you aren't going to be traced, what's it going to cost the company and it will boost your points very well!' We were encouraged to put down 9 bags. The training booklet we filled in had NO mention about re-using bags and adding extra points.

Looks even worse if she raised the point directly.

Bamber19

Ah, I was reading her first post where she said another colleague raised it. Seems just another example of her not being able to stick to one story for more than 5 minutes. I still find that laughable that she still hasn't made up her mind whether to accept it was deliberate or claim that it was due to her illnesses. It's kinda like "I didn't do it, but if I did..."

I also don't get the training book point she's making. "The book didn't say we couldn't commit fraud, so surely we were allowed to?" Is that what she means?

SarEl

Mind you, if her employer has been as glued to these threads as we have, then they will be fascinated by the fact that she has admitted to breaking the terms of her suspension; speaking to a work colleague and telling her what had happened. That alone is a dismissable offence. Since just about anyone can guess the employer (if they missed her spreading it all over the board originally). She really doesn't learn, even after we told her the consequences of what she was doing / wanted to do.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

Mind you, if her employer has been as glued to these threads as we have, then they will be fascinated by the fact that she has admitted to breaking the terms of her suspension; speaking to a work colleague and telling her what had happened. That alone is a dismissable offence.

Totally off topic. Can an employer actually impose a ban on talking to other employees [outside working hours of course] during a suspension and have a dismissal for breach upheld? It strikes me that there is quite a civil liberties issue on this.

Obviously, I can see a dismissal for discussion - as this would be a breach of trust.

wuckfit

I believe they can impose a ban as otherwise this might allow collusion between the suspended employee and others.

DVardysShadow

wuckfit wrote: »

I believe they can impose a ban as otherwise this might allow collusion between the suspended employee and others.

I can see a ban on discussion of specific matters, but I cannot see a ban on speaking to outside of work hours - it is interference with the right of free association, which normally requires a state power. It would be bad to have companies with powers to reduce civil liberties.

Errata

If the OP agreed not to contact or speak to work colleagues, then her civil liberties haven't been breached.