Suspended from work, and I'm innocent.

bendix

SarEl wrote: »

And to be fair - I know a little bit more than anyone else because I have been PM'ing the OP.

.

To be fair, no you don't. You know only his devoted mothers' interpretation of the situation and what she decides to tell you. There is a filter in any telling of any story.

You can't possibly know whether he actually forgot he had taken the tips or not. Ergo, you can't possibly KNOW his motives for going back.

Nicki

bendix wrote: »

To be fair, no you don't. You know only his devoted mothers' interpretation of the situation and what she decides to tell you. There is a filter in any telling of any story.

You can't possibly know whether he actually forgot he had taken the tips or not. Ergo, you can't possibly KNOW his motives for going back.

You are being ridiculous either deliberately or because you are too self important to back down when it has been shown that your viewpoint is of no use to the OP in this case.

The internal motives of OP's son are of no relevance in this case. Who can possibly know what they were, or prove them one way or another. Not his employer, a tribunal, his mum, Sar El or you!

The only things which are important in this situation are:

1 what was observed to happen, either by witnesses or on CTV
2 whether procedural fairness has been observed
3 whether the law has been applied correctly

Sar El with her experience has been able to advise mum on this thread and by PM about these issues because that is what she does for a living day in, day out. Amateurs who dabble in these situations representing themselves as employers may think they know how things work, but the first time one of their employees takes them to a tribunal, they will discover for themselves the gaps in their knowledge.

Your posts have been helpful only to the extent of demonstrating to mum the prejudices her son will face at his disciplinary, but the constant sniping and picking at Sar El is tiresome. She has done nothing wrong, other than get a law degree, pass her bar exams, do a year long pupillage, and then practise for a number of years in this area of the law. Can your experience of a couple of Jerry rigged disclipinaries done on the hoof really compete with this?

bendix

Nicki wrote: »

Your posts have been helpful only to the extent of demonstrating to mum the prejudices her son will face at his disciplinary, but the constant sniping and picking at Sar El is tiresome. She has done nothing wrong, other than get a law degree, pass her bar exams, do a year long pupillage, and then practise for a number of years in this area of the law. Can your experience of a couple of Jerry rigged disclipinaries done on the hoof really compete with this?

What on earth are you talking about?

My constant sniping and picking at Sar El? I have addressed only one comment to her on this entire thread, and that was solely to point out that she only has one side - a mothers' - of this incident.

And what do you mean by my experience of a couple of Jerry-rigged disciplinaries done on the hoof? Where on earth does that come from? I have never referred to anythng of that kind, and suspect you are confusing me with someone else.

My input to this thread is as valid as anyone else's. And it is based on not believing a story as the sole truth when one only hears one side of it, particularly when that side is being presented by a mother who - by the evidence of her posts - is fiercely protective of her son who in her mind can do wrong.

mariefab

Sometimes an employer's recollection of what is said at a disciplinary hearing can be slightly/vastly different to that of the employee.

In order to reduce the possibility of your son's explanation being overlooked; he could prepare a statement giving the whole of his side of the story.
He could take 2 copies to the hearing, hand one copy to the person chairing the meeting and ask them to sign and date the other copy to confirm it's receipt.

Nicki

bendix wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about?

My constant sniping and picking at Sar El? I have addressed only one comment to her on this entire thread, and that was solely to point out that she only has one side - a mothers' - of this incident.

And what do you mean by my experience of a couple of Jerry-rigged disciplinaries done on the hoof? Where on earth does that come from? I have never referred to anythng of that kind, and suspect you are confusing me with someone else.

My input to this thread is as valid as anyone else's. And it is based on not believing a story as the sole truth when one only hears one side of it, particularly when that side is being presented by a mother who - by the evidence of her posts - is fiercely protective of her son who in her mind can do wrong.

You are right. I apologise I had confused you with another poster so my post which you quoted was unduly harsh. I recognised your name from a couple of other threads where I have inwardly disagreed with you, and so jumped to the conclusion that all the posts I thought were misguided on this thread came from you

Nonetheless you, and some of the other posters, have missed the point rather on this thread. It isn't whether you believe that the OP's son would have done something wrong if given a chance, but whether on an objective basis what he actually did justifies a dismissal for gross misconduct.

SarEl

Could I just point out that everyone, it would appear, except me, is assuming that the disciplinary allegation is about an alleged intent to steal. Going back to the original posts there is absolutely not a shred of proof that this assumption is true - which I why I said that the OP's son should be (a) asking for the actual allegation (because breach of trust isn't an allegation, it's a feeling - and that is all the employer has said), and (b) asking for evidence that will be used to (c) allow him to dfeend himself. None of which has been provided yet. So speculation about whether the OP may or may not have intended to steal is pointless and not even relevant right now (and possibly ever) - the employer is failing to follow a fair process and that is what is relevant. An employee has the right to know what is alleged - he doesn't. They have the right to the evidence to be used - it hasn't been provided. They have the right to time to prepare a defence - that hasn't happened because the first two haven't. They also have the right to be given the disciplinary and grievance procedure - that hasn't happened. They have the right to be told if the outcome may be dismissal - and that hasn't happened. And the have the right to be told if the conduct amounts to gross misconduct if the employer thinks it does - that also hasn't happened.

So regardless of whether you believe the veracity of the mum (or her "filter" if you prefer to dress up the language), or the veracity of the son and her ability to detect his !!!!!!!! really doesn't matter - the employer is not above the law and they are acting like they are. That is the relevant point.

bendix

Fair point SarEl and Nicki, and I agree.

It seems the employer is acting very rashly here and it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind. As you know, we often think of employers as some kind of untouchable behemoth; they're not. They're a mass of inviduals, usually ill-informed and unwise, who make mistakes.

This entire episode sounds entirely ridiculous, and I personally am glad i don't work in an environment full of such mediocrity and crass vulgarity.

Having said that, I still think there is more to this than meets the eye.

lesleyvhalifax

any update op?

vax2002

They dont need any proof ? where has this word come from ?
What YOU need is an action of recourse and let them know you have one, then they may decide to "worry about" proof.
You dont sit down in these places and Prove anything, its a kangaroo court and you will get what decision they decide, on What "proof" they decide.
There is no independent person making any decisions, there is you and a bunch of people trying to sack you and they make the decisions.
They will make that decision based on two things.
what they can get away with and what you will do about it if they try it.

Booie_2

vax2002 wrote: »

They dont need any proof ? where has this word come from ?
What YOU need is an action of recourse and let them know you have one, then they may decide to "worry about" proof.
You dont sit down in these places and Prove anything, its a kangaroo court and you will get what decision they decide, on What "proof" they decide.
There is no independent person making any decisions, there is you and a bunch of people trying to sack you and they make the decisions.
They will make that decision based on two things.
what they can get away with and what you will do about it if they try it.

Kangaroo court was more like Micky Mouse!!

lesleyvhalifax wrote: »

any update op?

It hasn't gone good for my sons boss, I'm just writing out the minutes, so quick reply now, as I wasn't in meeting, there was an hour and a half of disorganised rants, and no disciplinary proceedures were followed, They were so unprepared, as they sat there in their shorts and t shirts! they also had the manager in the meeting, his statement was told to secretary who wrote it and read it out and it was full of approximately's and abouts? When the boss recounted his story, it was completely different, and my friend pointed this out, to which he lost his temper, henched his shoulders towards my friend, was blood red, and shouting, he looked very intimidating apparently, but my friend who runs a MOT station, is not intimidated easily, so she told the secretary and chairman to calm their manager down, and remove him from the meeting, then he got so incredibly angry, he was spitting while he shouted. So my friend decided that the boss was doing plenty of damage and so thought it was best to leave him there, and it was.
Everything he had on his statement was proven untrue, either by him forgetting his lies and making up another story, or the cctv, which they replayed in the bar infront of other staff, and not in confidence, which clearly showed that we had left and returned in 3 mins and 40 seconds, and not the 20 minutes he had on his statement.
But the corker of a line was from the secretary, "well we dont know what to do, or doing really, we have to look into industrial law!!!!!!! The manager is refusing to work with Mr DS" my friend said 'you mean employment law but you've still not given any valid allegation that warrants this disciplinary, and she was told, we'll class this as the investigatory meeting, and arrange a disciplinary next week!

We're not really sure now what to do, its so pathetic and they're clutching at straws, altho it will be 2 weeks till the next 'meeting' as we're waiting on cctv copies and a final decision on what the allegation will be. lol