Suspended from work, and I'm innocent.

anamenottaken

flexrider wrote: »

W
You are entitled to one free copy of the video of CCTV video if they refuse try the freedom of infomation act on the grounds of being accused of something your son has not done to get all the details stright. Dunno if it will work but worth a try.

Freedom of Information is about obtaining information from public bodies.

Others have mentioned a subject access request under Data Protection Act. Think the maximum charge permitted for the video copy would be £10.

vax2002

Many will help if he pays say six months subscription up front, in fact most will.
On recourse if they help he can expect 12 weeks wages for every year he has worked in compensation plus a disbursement for the injustice which is at the tribunals discretion .
The "drunks" bosses may consider this cost once they know he has some back up and back away.
Its worth getting in touch with that union as soon as possible.

WhiteHorse

SarEl wrote: »

Oh - now I am going to say - that would be very very stupid and might land you in a serious amount of !!!!.

No it won't.

You are suspended and shouldn't be talking to other staff without the employers permission ...

Says who?

... recording a third party to make them a witness against their will?

Tough.

Such evidence would certainly not be accepted by a tribunal ...

A tribunal might choose to ignore it. The subsequent appeal and civil action would certainly see it admitted.

... and definitely could end up with a police visit.

No it won't. No crime has been committed.

flexrider

SarEl wrote: »

No - it was actually me that said I would bet they will have been taped over.

But I have to repeat - Collins dictionary (nor any other for that matter) does not define what a breach of trust is in employment law terms. There is NO requirement for evidence. The only requirement is "reasonable belief" and that can literally be "we believe the manager and not you". I do not think many people appreciate the vagaries of employment law - this is not criminal law and evidence is not required. Honestly!

collins dictionary defines the meaning of the term. that is all it was used for as the english language defines it, weather you agree or not the meaning in english and the law are the same meaning except it is several meanings in law and employment.

I am up to date with employment Law being a owner and employer myself to 3 offices (workforce of 230 people) however a strong defence for the reasonable belief is required by the pre determined management to end the contract of the employee upon findings after investigation, you can read this on the trade union website (cwu)

You missed my point entirely i know the differnce between criminal law

however if i had you working in my business and suspected you of pinching off me from the business paperclips! or office rescources i would have to do like this idiot manager and place you under suspension and investigate however i would need clear evidence that you stole from the company. By checking the inventory ect or what i suspect you to have pinched.

you are right but his job is safe. all my point is a verbal warning then slap on wrist added to record,all thats coming" if it dont get resloved a written warning followed by termination of contract.That what happens mostly at these type of things, I should now i am the guy who has to send the letter of termination sometimes in my own companies after HR staff detail me what is going on. my advice before any of that happens carry on working there until u find a new job.

also still does not give the manager who was drunk in charge the right to state breach of trust and like i have mentioned to the op would love to know who was running the whole show when he was !!!!ed up!!

WhiteHorse

anamenottaken wrote: »

Others have mentioned a subject access request under Data Protection Act. Think the maximum charge permitted for the video copy would be £10.

This would be a good move. Of course, it is highly likely that any awkward footage will have been 'accidentally' wiped.

Make sure that you find out if tapes are numbered. Also ask for the tapes covering each side of the incident (to establish if anything is missing). Going into a tribunal and commenting that footage has mysteriously vanished never looks good.

Simply asking for it shows that you mean business and often has a salutory effect. Looking into the possibility of breaches of the license is a good idea too.

patman99

OP, your son's employers will not have a clue whether or not the phone calls were recorded. He can call their bluff by producing a 'transcript' of the telephone calls (complete with swearing).
By requesting a copy of the cctv he may well scare the living sh*t out of them anyway. Might also be worth a call to your local paper.

As the manager and staff appear to drink on duty, I wonder what the HSE would make of that.

Remember, there are always ways of making trouble for them on the quiet. For instance, it is an offence to continue to serve alcohol to a person if they are already drunk, but it appears to be common practice in this particular establishment. If your son loses his job, then when the bar's license is up for renewal, he could write a lengthy statement outlining all the times that the bar served customers who were already drunk, allowed staff (including 1st Aiders) to drink on duty and how the bar regularly held 'after-hours' sessions.

flexrider

anamenottaken wrote: »

Freedom of Information is about obtaining information from public bodies.

Others have mentioned a subject access request under Data Protection Act. Think the maximum charge permitted for the video copy would be £10.

Thanks being the bank holiday my business mind is drowned with plenty of Guiness stout but i was almost right anyhow just picked the wrong act.

patman99

SarEl is/was an employment Lawyer (if I remember correctly), her advice re the recording of a conversation for use as evidence is correct. To be admissable, the interviewer must make the interviewee aware that a recording is being made. This is why secret recordings on shows such as 'Rogue Traders' and 'Saints and scroungers' are never submitted as evidence (although they are broadcast on TV).

If there was no need to inform anyone you were about to record the conversation you are just about to have with them, then customer service centres would not bother with the 'this call may be recorded....' bit when you phone them.

SarEl

vax2002 wrote: »

Many will help if he pays say six months subscription up front, in fact most will.
On recourse if they help he can expect 12 weeks wages for every year he has worked in compensation plus a disbursement for the injustice which is at the tribunals discretion .
The "drunks" bosses may consider this cost once they know he has some back up and back away.
Its worth getting in touch with that union as soon as possible.

This is total rubbish. There is no such calculation in employment tribunals.

SarEl

WhiteHorse wrote: »

No it won't.


Says who?


Tough.


A tribunal might choose to ignore it. The subsequent appeal and civil action would certainly see it admitted.


No it won't. No crime has been committed.

You cannot appeal a tribunal except on a point of law. Disagreeing with their rightful refusal to accept unlawfully recorded conversatioons from third parties who have been entrapped is not a point of law. An EAT would therefore not even accept the appeal.

And what civil case would the OP be bringing?

The OP may take your advice or mine - their choice.