Urgent help required Unfair Dismissal

LadyMissA

So your company were happy with your compromising yourself in this way?

AlfonsoM

LadyMissA, You are correct. I did state I could nnot pass over the details to protect me from being accused of theft.

I was sacked for taking this stance and today the Et judge refused to accept my argument and said I should have passed the details over when requested.

DVardysShadow

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So the question is - is another employee a third party to the company/bank relationship or to your relationship with the bank on behalf of your employer?

This is precisely the issue which is the stumbling block here and I envisage many happy hours arguing that one either way. Which is why I asked my question.

If the single account can be operated by many employees, each with their own logon, then when the OP says

The T&C's of the banks online banking state the details should not be given or shared with a third party.

we can deduce that the 1st party is the bank, the 2nd is the employee with the logon and the 3rd party would be any other employee.

But if the bank only provides a single logon for an account, the 1st party is still the bank, the 2nd is the employer and the 3rd party would be any other person not authorised by the employer to operate the account. In essence the OP would not be the 2nd party to whom the instruction applies.

LadyMissA

AlfonsoM wrote: »

LadyMissA, You are correct. I did state I could nnot pass over the details to protect me from being accused of theft.

I was sacked for taking this stance and today the Et judge refused to accept my argument and said I should have passed the details over when requested.

Well if 100% true they deserve to have something happen if they care not for procedure

AlfonsoM

The bank requires each user of a company bank account to register and sign up for an access.

DVardysShadow

AlfonsoM wrote: »

LadyMissA, You are correct. I did state I could nnot pass over the details to protect me from being accused of theft.

I was sacked for taking this stance and today the Et judge refused to accept my argument and said I should have passed the details over when requested.

The missing part of your argument is that the correct way for the new employee to be authorised to operate the account was by being given their own fresh logon. This is a fraud prevention measure to ensure that everyone is individually accountable for their actions on the account.

LadyMissA

Right question here to the OP: At an ET, what happens? Does the employer have to answer questions? If so why did not one ask them what would have happend if a fraud had taken place on YOUR log in?

AlfonsoM

LadyMissA, I did state that to the comapny an also to the ET judge today but he has rejected this point. It is the central point of my claim for unfair dismissals and the judge is adament he is not going to accept.

I looks as if I should llet him do this and then use it against him at an appeal as I fell certain to lose my case.

LadyMissA

AlfonsoM wrote: »

LadyMissA, I did state that to the comapny an also to the ET judge today but he has rejected this point. It is the central point of my claim for unfair dismissals and the judge is adament he is not going to accept.

I looks as if I should llet him do this and then use it against him at an appeal as I fell certain to lose my case.

but what was the company reply to that question? What did they actually say?

AlfonsoM

They said this was grounds for dismissal under a breakdown in trust and confidence and sacked me a few days later.

My main concern is what to do at the ET tomorrow;

Lodge a complait aginst the judge?

Ask for a ruling on the point from a legal expert?