Suspension without getting dismissed?

SarEl

wuckfit wrote: »

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

Correct. It is a widely believed myth that employers cannot take into account or control things that happen outside work. In truth it is a matter of "reasonableness". If someone has been suspended and is under invetsigation for misconduct, then association with others from the same workplace interferes with the investigation, and it is reasonable (and quite normal) for the employer to impose such a term on the employee - and dismissals based solely on the grounds of breach of this term have been upheld.

Besides which, the OP admitted not only to speaking to a colleague - she told said colleague why she wasn't in work, that she had grassed up others to management (including said colleague), and what the investigation was looking into. So, not exactly staying off the subject. Having done so she advertised it on the internet for her employers to find.

loopy_lass

shakes head and wanders off.... civil liberties... at the end of the day to get a "true" unbiased unadulterated result its best people dont discuss... its the same in courts. now people either want a fair hearing or they want things coloured in their favour.

loops

LittleVoice

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I think you need to read all the threads.

I had been following, along with a lot of other people. (I even remember the call centre thread when it was live.) I did wonder whether we had become a little blinkered and that maybe she hadn't been 100% duplicitous in the other thread.

I also feel she is a confused individual and was looking for comfort and testing out her story to refine it for presentation in the disciplinary process. The fact that she got good advice here on how to conduct herself was wasted but, if she read the comments here and elsewhere, she should be able to work out what some of the patently obvious flaws are in her argument ahead of the further investigation.

DVardysShadow

loopy_lass wrote: »

shakes head and wanders off.... civil liberties... at the end of the day to get a "true" unbiased unadulterated result its best people dont discuss... its the same in courts. now people either want a fair hearing or they want things coloured in their favour.

loops

The point is that being prevented from talking with colleagues OUTSIDE the workplace IS a breach of civil liberties. The employer is not an agent of the State. How would people feel if their council told them who they could and could not speak to?

Errata

If part of the agreement to be suspended was that the OP agreed they would make no contact then civil liberties doesn't come into it. It would seem that the OP did agree, but lperhaps ike everything else concerned with her employment she follows instructions when it suits her and ignores them when it doesn't.

Wintermute

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The point is that being prevented from talking with colleagues OUTSIDE the workplace IS a breach of civil liberties. The employer is not an agent of the State. How would people feel if their council told them who they could and could not speak to?

No, it's not. They have a choice, if they wish to remain in their employment the OP can follow the employers rules, if not she can leave and speak to whoever she wants (unless it's in breach of a contract which could lead to legal action against her). I'm not allowed to discuss aspects of my job with people, that's not breaching my freedom of speech or anything, it's just part of my contract which I accepted.

DCFC79

JC is there an update you can provide us with

DVardysShadow

Wintermute wrote: »

No, it's not. They have a choice, if they wish to remain in their employment the OP can follow the employers rules, if not she can leave and speak to whoever she wants (unless it's in breach of a contract which could lead to legal action against her). I'm not allowed to discuss aspects of my job with people, that's not breaching my freedom of speech or anything, it's just part of my contract which I accepted.

That is different from giving up your rights to free association.

suited-aces

Wintermute wrote: »

No, it's not. They have a choice, if they wish to remain in their employment the OP can follow the employers rules, if not she can leave and speak to whoever she wants (unless it's in breach of a contract which could lead to legal action against her). I'm not allowed to discuss aspects of my job with people, that's not breaching my freedom of speech or anything, it's just part of my contract which I accepted.

My friend's former employer tried to impose this ban on her after she quit her shop job.

KevInChester

Just keep an eye out on the news for a certain chain having to shut as nobody else can use the tills