just been sacked for theft in retail

milothewestie

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Not necessarily, it could be argued that she was picked on because of her disability. It may have been the reason why she was singled out to be accused, because it might have been assumed she wouldn't make as much fuss as someone with full hearing; an easy target, if you will.

thanks flyboy:T you put it in good words,i struggle with that sometimes

FakeIrish

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Not necessarily, it could be argued that she was picked on because of her disability. It may have been the reason why she was singled out to be accused, because it might have been assumed she wouldn't make as much fuss as someone with full hearing; an easy target, if you will.

Well, the op was advised to stick to relevant facts when writing her appeal.

Now it transpires the op threw in 13 different points in the appeal, including those of a sexual and disability matter.

I may be wrong, but it sounds as if the op has "counter-claimed" with other allegations, and the company is now obliged to investigate these new claims.

I would certainly advised the op not to count her chickens just yet, and await the result of the appeal.

dickydonkin

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Not necessarily, it could be argued that she was picked on because of her disability. It may have been the reason why she was singled out to be accused, because it might have been assumed she wouldn't make as much fuss as someone with full hearing; an easy target, if you will.

To 'argue' that she was 'picked on' because of a disabilty needs to be proven - not assumed.

I have seen nothing in this thread that would stand up in tribunal for an accusation of discrimination to be upheld.

To suggest that someone without 'full hearing' would not 'make such a fuss' may be deemed by such people as an insult.

Mays, mights, and assumptions are no basis for an accusation of discrimination.

milothewestie

FakeIrish wrote: »

Well, the op was advised to stick to relevant facts when writing her appeal.

Now it transpires the op threw in 13 different points in the appeal, including those of a sexual and disability matter.

I may be wrong, but it sounds as if the op has "counter-claimed" with other allegations, and the company is now obliged to investigate these new claims.

I would certainly advised the op not to count her chickens just yet, and await the result of the appeal.

no 11 points from the original dismissal and two new points which as i said are relevent to the sacking so really i think nothing new and im not counting any chickens just getting some general advice from some decent people who dont mind sharing there knowledge

milothewestie

dpassmore wrote: »

To 'argue' that she was picked on because of a disabilty needs to be proven - not assumed.

I have seen nothing in this thread that would stand up in tribunal for an accusation of discrimination to be upheld.

Management incompetence on the otherhand................

so removing a loop system would not make my job as a deaf person harder to a good hearing person or did you miss that part and i dont need to prove anything just present the facts and this is what im doing

FakeIrish

milothewestie wrote: »

so removing a loop system would not make my job as a deaf person harder to a good hearing person or did you miss that part and i dont need to prove anything just present the facts and this is what im doing

But how does this relate to the missing cash?

milothewestie

and im presenting that to them and a tribunal if i need to they use the evidence as they seem fit just like any judge does

milothewestie

FakeIrish wrote: »

But how does this relate to the missing cash?

because i complained about it all the time not being fair,so maybe they got sick of me complaining and decided they would rather get rid of me than fix the problem whether i nicked the money or not i was the scapegoat

FakeIrish

milothewestie wrote: »

just getting some general advice from some decent people who dont mind sharing there knowledge

Care to share your experiences of sexual and disability discrimation, and how these relates to the missing cash?

dickydonkin

FakeIrish wrote: »

Well, the op was advised to stick to relevant facts when writing her appeal.

Now it transpires the op threw in 13 different points in the appeal, including those of a sexual and disability matter.

I may be wrong, but it sounds as if the op has "counter-claimed" with other allegations, and the company is now obliged to investigate these new claims.

I would certainly advised the op not to count her chickens just yet, and await the result of the appeal.

Absolutely.

And you may have a point regarding investigations of new claims.

I did point out that two weeks seemed a long time to wait for the outcome of an appeal - now it seems that this could be the reason.