Legally is an employer allowed to.....

sho_me_da_money

SuzyZ wrote: »

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).

Hey there,

Just to provide some clarity - my wife is NOT fired at this time. Following the meeting between my wife, union rep and her company (the meeting that was adjourned), she has been off on sick leave.

She was expecting to return to work on 11th June however, the manager has forwarded a new letter stating that she is not to return on the premises as she has been suspended on full pay until further notice.

What confuses me is that they did not suspend her on full pay back in March after inviting her to a disciplinary hearing. After receiving the initial letter, she continued to work as normal for approximately 4 weeks before going on sick leave.

I was always under the impression that an employee would be considered for suspension if they posed a risk to the business after being alleged of breaching a severe condition that is usually listed under the section of Gross Misconduct in the companies disciplinary procedure.

I have no idea how she has posed being a risk whilst being on sick leave? Why suspend now and not then?

The fact of the matter is that she is not a risk. The company has sought professional advice and has been informed that they cannot dismiss my wife unless suspending her on full pay, which they are putting into motion now.

With respect to the child being hurt - yes you are correct. My wife accepts and acknowledges that she should have chosen a better time to do a focussed activity however, she believes that she is not solely responsible for this childs injury. The safety and well being of children was affected by a number of factors:

1) The other member of staff (more qualified than my wife) could have chosen a better time to put the children to sleep knowing that 2 members of staff were already on lunch. By choosing to put them to sleep at that time increased the risk of safety to the children. The room was out of ratio, there wasn't enough visibility and a child was ultimately hurt. Had this member of staff chosen a better time, the incident could have wholly been avoided.

2) The managers of the nursery were aware that when teachers go on lunch, the timing overlapped with childrens nap time. This placed workers in a tricky situation where 2 would be on lunch, 1 would be putting some to sleep and 1 would be left in a room out of ratio. This has always been the case and if the company had attended to resolving this issue, the incident could have been wholly avoided.

My wife completely accepts her lapse in observation and acknowledges her mistake however, doesnt understand why she is being penalised and others are not? The inital letter clearly stated this was a performance related issue where they would like to put a plan in place, offer training and help her improve.

This "help" was a completely lie as the most recent letter now states they are looking to deal with this lapse in observation as a formal allegation under the disciplinary procedure.....

Yes she found out about the Ofsted ratio after.

sho_me_da_money

BobQ wrote: »

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.

True BQ. Ill del the previous posts.

sho_me_da_money

ILW wrote: »

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

An unfair dismissal, which I am near-certain is on the cards.

mynameistallulah

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

True BQ. Ill del the previous posts.

People are suggesting that this is a bad place to post because, if her employer does become aware that you are posting on here, even if you delete the posts are still viewable via Google.

You really need to be careful, as from what I can see you are doing more harm than good.

mynameistallulah

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

An unfair dismissal, which I am near-certain is on the cards.

You have told us nothing that would indicate this. If they have made errors in the procedure, they appear to be remedying these. Plus as long as a dismissal is within the band of reasonable responses to the incident, then the dismissal will still be fair. If a child has been injured whilst in the care of your wife, a dismissal would seem warranted. If others were involved in the lack of care, then they should be investigated also, but that will not negate the role of your wife in the incident.

ILW

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

An unfair dismissal, which I am near-certain is on the cards.

How much,and is it worth the bother if your wife is ill?

sho_me_da_money

marybelle01 wrote: »

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.

You are right. But these are not errors, these are MASSIVE blunders. I have found and read many recent case-laws where ONE of these so-called errors where held against the employer resulting in an automatic judgement for the defendant regarding unfair dismissal,

The key word as I said is reasonable. These errors are beyond that scope.

mynameistallulah

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

You are right. But these are not errors, these are MASSIVE blunders. I have found and read many recent case-laws where ONE of these so-called errors where held against the employer resulting in an automatic judgement for the defendant regarding unfair dismissal,

The key word as I said is reasonable. These errors are beyond that scope.

Which "case-laws" are you referring to? I am not sure what you mean by an "automatic judgement" - that would normally mean a default judgment i.e. that the respondent has not entered a defence.

sho_me_da_money

ILW wrote: »

How much,and is it worth the bother if your wife is ill?

No money is worth the cost of my wifes health however, this employer has really caused her some bad distress. She almost handed in her notice a couple of days ago and was willing to give everything up.

But knowing that:

1. They are a rotten company
2. They will never learn
3. They will win by default even though they are wrong
4. They have unfairly dismissed many of her past friends
5. She is the only person to have stood up to them despite being head-hunted back into the organisation after initially leaving them a few years ago.
6. She was sexually harrassed by the owner (cannot be dealt with since its in the long past)
7. She has a chance to pave way and make life easier for any other employee in the organisation.

.... Makes it worthy enough to pursue.

We actually think based on the opinions above, the company might have a chance at Tribunal should it reach that stage but she wants to see it through.

We aren't poor and we don't really need the money. It's just a question of principle.

Of course, she would need to recover fully to stand up against them/

sho_me_da_money

mynameistallulah wrote: »

Which "case-laws" are you referring to? I am not sure what you mean by an "automatic judgement" - that would normally mean a default judgment i.e. that the respondent has not entered a defence.

Just been reading cases here and many other places.

http://www.xperthr.co.uk/employmentlaw/caselawreports.aspx?TopicID=21&SubtopicID=266

If fired and pursued at Tribunal, I think it will ultimately come down to:

1. Was it reasonable and fair hearing
2. Were the blunders forgivable as they were later rectified
3. Is there sufficient evidence to support the allegation of bullying/harrassment. The only evidence we know of is the claimants word/
4. Was she solely responsible for the injury that occured to a child and did it warrant going to disciplinary or could it have been treated with a less severe punishment such as a Warning or FWW especially since she has an unblemished record and 2 promotions on file. The Performance plan was a good suggestion but they changed during her sick leave.

I do believe we have a strong chance in exposing these b******s!