Legally is an employer allowed to.....

marybelle01

BobQ wrote: »

While I realise you are trying to help your friend, posting information about what happens in a confidential meeting between your friend and her union rep is not in your friend's best interest. I also think that you should stay out of this matter if she is now getting objective advice.

You have already posted enough on this site (under different aliases) to enable an employer to potentially identify your friend.

Let the union rep deal with it, or help your friend get reliable advice. The union rep can ask questions about the law by consulting with Unison legal advisors as needed.

Its not a soap opera that you need to report back on.

I agree. This is your friends business and her unions business. It isn't yours and it isn't ours. If she wants advice then she should post. Biut your prurient interest in her affairs is not helpful or healthy.

sho_me_da_money

This post has been deleted by the original creator.

sho_me_da_money

marybelle01 wrote: »

I agree. This is your friends business and her unions business. It isn't yours and it isn't ours. If she wants advice then she should post. Biut your prurient interest in her affairs is not helpful or healthy.

For the record, this friend is my wife.

The reason why I have taken a keen interest in this is a) Because I am her husband and b) Because her medical condition is pretty bad and she is unfit to carry out this type of research herself.

With regards to the company identifying us - We honestly do not care as it doesn't change things in the slightest. The facts are the facts - they are going to dismiss her and they have ballsed up this case from the start.




Thanks,

sho_me_da_money

mynameistallulah wrote: »

That's the user, thank you! Seem to recall there were two threads, any chance you can find the other one too?

(It seems to be called "Investigation and Disciplinary - same?" but I can only get the first few posts. )

I will save you the time B** (name masked for confidentiality). Both threads have been removed. Try not to get wet tomorrow, awful weather in Cambridgeshire darling.

ILW

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

I will save you the time B** (name masked for confidentiality). Both threads have been removed. Try not to get wet tomorrow, awful weather in Cambridgeshire darling.

If it is shown that the organisation did not follow the correct procedure, what are you hoping to achieve?

marybelle01

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

For the record, this friend is my wife.

The reason why I have taken a keen interest in this is a) Because I am her husband and b) Because her medical condition is pretty bad and she is unfit to carry out this type of research herself.

With regards to the company identifying us - We honestly do not care as it doesn't change things in the slightest. The facts are the facts - they are going to dismiss her and they have ballsed up this case from the start.




Thanks,

In which case your concern is understandable, but you are the worst person in the world to be dealing with this and should leave it to her union. It is abundantly apparent that you cannot be objective from your posts. They may have made errors, but they have corrected them. What you take as facts are not facts - they are your highly personal view of how you want the world to operate. Being so subjective is not helping your wife. By all means be supportive - but being over involved is not being supportive if you cannot see things objectively.

mynameistallulah

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

I will save you the time B** (name masked for confidentiality). Both threads have been removed. Try not to get wet tomorrow, awful weather in Cambridgeshire darling.

Name away because my name is not B** ... In fact I am intrigued as to who you think I am!

You may have missed EvilM's kind posts - your other threads are still viewable on Google Cache.

BobQ

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

For the record, this friend is my wife.

The reason why I have taken a keen interest in this is a) Because I am her husband and b) Because her medical condition is pretty bad and she is unfit to carry out this type of research herself.

With regards to the company identifying us - We honestly do not care as it doesn't change things in the slightest. The facts are the facts - they are going to dismiss her and they have ballsed up this case from the start.

Thanks,

Fair enough, if your wife does not care about it and is happy with you publishing information about the matter you can do so. But this does not make it wise to publish the advice your wife is getting.

SuzyZ

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And your friend also has a union rep: what do they say?

You have no way of knowing or checking anyone's credentials here. If you've got experienced and qualified people available to give advice IRL, I don't think you'll learn much here.

So do you not believe the advice you've had IRL? Because if you or your friend want advice you can absolutely rely on, you need to pay for it.

But key point, what does the union say?

I totally agree with the above re advice. You need to pay for it or some solicitors offer a free 1 hour advisory service, even employment solicitors.

Although people here *seem to be* qualified in HR etc this does mean you can take on board their opinions as HR/employment lawyers and use them in this and other cases. I would always see a professional *IRL*.

It seems to me - OP - that you are trying to gauge others opinions a lot here - then (judging from later in the post) going back to the HRDs (or expert) saying what we've said here, then getting another opinion and coming back to us again for more. which can only confuse you.

SuzyZ

following on from EvilM's link

Briefly reading through the *cached posts*. So does this mean your *wife* is now fired or is she claiming unfair dismissal via a tribunal?

I am unclear.

For your information - there is a lot to be picked apart on both sides re her original case - but I do see things to be a bit strange that she was not only:-

a) involved 1 to 1 with a child painting when there were other children to be watched

and

b) why did she not bring up/bring to someone's attention the Ofsted ratio of 1:8 staff to children rather than let it lead up to 1:12?

or did you find out the Ofsted ratio *after* this incident occurred?

At the end of the day - another child was hurt during this incident - how seriously we do not know from your notes. but how would you feel as a parent if it were your kid who was hurt and then finding out details afterwards?

It doesn't matter to go into points (videoed) about someone else nattering/children behind a screen etc *AFTER* the event has happened. Your wife is the employee here and should, at the time be fully conversant with the Ofsted ratio (bit like bolting stable door after horse has bolted to know it after the event happened) and also she should well know not to be doing something 1:1 with a kid and not keeping her eye on the other kids!

she should be fully aware/competent as a member of staff despite (I would have thought) of the safety/ratio of kids, despite knowing about the Ofsted rule (common sense again comes into play here).