Legally is an employer allowed to.....

marybelle01

I am just going to say this once in the hope that it gets heard, but I doubt it very much, and then I am giving up on this thread.

OP, you have entirely lost perspective on this matter, you are too close to be objective, and you are reading and hearing only what you want to read and hear. Anyone who even vaguely disagrees with you is wrong, and your responses are verging on offensive. Anyone who agrees with you, you lecture like a schoolchild ("correct..."!) and your responses are patronising in the extreme. This is a disciplinary hearing, not a showcase for you to demonstrate how clever you are; and if you have acted in the same way towards the employer as you have towards people here, then I do wonder whether you bear some of the responsibility for ratcheting this up to the place it now is - nobody likes a patronising, sarcastic clever clogs, and it isn't an attitude designed to calm things down and pour oil on troubled waters.

The reality of this situation is now, it would appear, that there is no way back. Even if the employer does not dismiss, I cannot see how your wife can return to this workplace since there seems to be so much bad blood on both sides. You seem to think that you have done all the other employees a favour - and again this comes across as entirely patronising - but you haven't. You may not have liked the fact that they had "crappy internet templates" and were such a small employer that they made mistakes - you can bet your fortune that from now on any employee will feel the full force of a well resourced and solid case against them, and a dead certainty that there will be the law and nothing but the law used, something that rarely works in the employees favour. As you have said yourself, even you guessed that the initial outcome was going to be less than dismissal, and now you think it will be dismissal - so that has really helped matters hasn't it?

You are clinging to an absolute certainty that you are going to win a tribunal. Unlike some of the others hear all I know about tribunals is what I have read, but none of them see the same certainty you do, and everything I know from reading here and elsewhere suggests that your certainty is misplaced. Have you actually considered the damage that will be done if you lose? Your wife ends up with a dismissal on her record for a child protection matter. It will be a long time, if ever, before she is allowed to work with children again.

I don't know as much as others here about the law, but child protection I do know about, and having read your other thread from the link here before you deleted it all, the nursery was operating to the correct ratios because putting children to bed in the same room behind a curtain does not reduce the ratio of staff in the room; your wife should have been aware of the activity being undertaken by the other member of staff and shifted her attention outwards; and nobody working with groups of children should be so focussed on an individual that they fail to see an incident involving two children in which one is hurt. It is, quite literally, a field of work in which you must have eyes in the back of your head. If you know that another member of staff is putting children to bed, it is a misjudgement to be involved in a focussed activity with one child - and she did know this because you said that at this time children were always put to bed. But what has started off as a misjudgement, which I agree probably would have led to nothing more than a warning, has escalated to such an extent that there is no way back.

sho_me_da_money

marybelle01 wrote: »

I am just going to say this once in the hope that it gets heard, but I doubt it very much, and then I am giving up on this thread.

OP, you have entirely lost perspective on this matter, you are too close to be objective, and you are reading and hearing only what you want to read and hear. Anyone who even vaguely disagrees with you is wrong, and your responses are verging on offensive. Anyone who agrees with you, you lecture like a schoolchild ("correct..."!) and your responses are patronising in the extreme. This is a disciplinary hearing, not a showcase for you to demonstrate how clever you are; and if you have acted in the same way towards the employer as you have towards people here, then I do wonder whether you bear some of the responsibility for ratcheting this up to the place it now is - nobody likes a patronising, sarcastic clever clogs, and it isn't an attitude designed to calm things down and pour oil on troubled waters.

The reality of this situation is now, it would appear, that there is no way back. Even if the employer does not dismiss, I cannot see how your wife can return to this workplace since there seems to be so much bad blood on both sides. You seem to think that you have done all the other employees a favour - and again this comes across as entirely patronising - but you haven't. You may not have liked the fact that they had "crappy internet templates" and were such a small employer that they made mistakes - you can bet your fortune that from now on any employee will feel the full force of a well resourced and solid case against them, and a dead certainty that there will be the law and nothing but the law used, something that rarely works in the employees favour. As you have said yourself, even you guessed that the initial outcome was going to be less than dismissal, and now you think it will be dismissal - so that has really helped matters hasn't it?

You are clinging to an absolute certainty that you are going to win a tribunal. Unlike some of the others hear all I know about tribunals is what I have read, but none of them see the same certainty you do, and everything I know from reading here and elsewhere suggests that your certainty is misplaced. Have you actually considered the damage that will be done if you lose? Your wife ends up with a dismissal on her record for a child protection matter. It will be a long time, if ever, before she is allowed to work with children again.

I don't know as much as others here about the law, but child protection I do know about, and having read your other thread from the link here before you deleted it all, the nursery was operating to the correct ratios because putting children to bed in the same room behind a curtain does not reduce the ratio of staff in the room; your wife should have been aware of the activity being undertaken by the other member of staff and shifted her attention outwards; and nobody working with groups of children should be so focussed on an individual that they fail to see an incident involving two children in which one is hurt. It is, quite literally, a field of work in which you must have eyes in the back of your head. If you know that another member of staff is putting children to bed, it is a misjudgement to be involved in a focussed activity with one child - and she did know this because you said that at this time children were always put to bed. But what has started off as a misjudgement, which I agree probably would have led to nothing more than a warning, has escalated to such an extent that there is no way back.

Dear Marybelle,

I will try and be quick with my responses.

I would describe myself as a person who does stand firm to a belief providing I have sufficient information to go on. I cannot tell you the amount of times where I have had the majority of people tell me no, no and no, yet, the minority ended up being correct for e.g.

I crashed a car, I claimed on the insurance and my MOT was 6 months out of date. The insurer was refusing to indemnify using a clause in the policy and the majority of MSE members said I will not get paid out. But after some intensive research, encouragement (from the minority) and several letters later, I got a full pay out.

That is just one of the many examples (on MSE) where some members got it wrong.

I am not lecturing and I certainly am not intending to be offensive to any forum member of here. I feel you have lost perception. If my comments have been perceived as patrionising, I apologise to you and any other person.

Challenging a response IS NOT the same as "not hearing". I am hearing you and am simply acknowledging and responding. Thus far, I have agreed with many people but I have also challenged them. Remember nothing is gospel on here (including my own word) but the beauty of conversing, challenging and exchanging opinions (be they are correct or not) is expanding my views on how this could go.

I am not clinging onto any fact about winning a tribunal outcome. I have said it numerous times already - I AM NOT BOTHERED WHETHER WE WIN OR LOSE (not sure how clearer I can say it). This matter is a question of principle.

Somebody has to make a stand for this malpractice and injustice and if it isn't me it would undoubtedly be someone else. But it is me, and I am going to to do everything in my power to see it through. The outcome is irrelevant.

The child protection issue is a valid and fair allegation (you see I do agree) but could the company have exercised a less severe sanction considering the record of the employee? This initself can be their achilles heel.

My wifes future prospects in childcare hold no bearing to this thread. SHE IS GOING TO GET DISMISSED whether I pursue this or not. It is already the worst it can possibly be. Not moving forward with this will not change anything.

Lastly, I am not clever. Life is about battles. It aint over, until its over - what I say, what you say, what my friends say, what anyone says is merely a matter of opinion and I welcome it - Be it for or against me.

The ONLY thing that matters in this case is THE LAW and whether the employer followed it? Can the mistakes they made be held against them? We don't know.

I will let you know how this one pans out in due course.

ILW

I do get the impression that this whole affair is now about the OPs pride and very little else.

SuzyZ

Coming at this as a complete outsider (not knowing the history of the poster) this does seem like a vendetta (though stated as not).

OP - I really think you are on a ride to nowhere here.

As stated by a few other posters you will end up doing your wife more harm than good. After this she will be unable to get a job working in childcare as the current company will not give her a reference.

You seem to be passing the buck left, right and centre, blaming on one hand and then praising (albeit sarcastically) the company which she works for, for using HR templates (I think that's what it was).

Trust me - most companies will not like members of staff and their family telling them how to run their companies. FACT. end of. You got away with it one time but another time I doubt it.

How the LAW works here is another thing, have they followed it and also how has your wife adhered to it in relation to her job? as I said before, A CHILD HAS BEEN HURT. The parents of said child are probably up in arms demanding some action is carried out. Had said parents found out (regardless of what other members of staff were or were not doing/talking about) that YOUR WIFE was NOT looking after the children due to her inattention and THEIR CHILD gets hurt then of course they would be furious.

Lunch breaks etc are not down to you or your wife to dictate, nor other aspects of the workplace. She should make suggestions at workplace meetings but at the end of the day it is their company and their rules.

I personally feel from some of your other posts here that you are doing your wife harm in encouraging her to go this far.

What *I* would do (and have done in not a similar role but when I wanted to leave a role I was unhappy in) is encourage your wife to leave but also maybe try to get a reference out of them. As I said before see an employment lawyer. You would probably pay under £100 for a 1 hour consultation (or get a free one) but this could result in proper HR info which your wife could use to mediate with this company IF by some streak of good will they were to offer, I don't know, a compromise agreement or something.

I am seriously wondering here is all this worth it?! You do say you've won on other claims but a quick flick of your other posts would indicate that you yourself have had run ins with HR departments (or your friends etc).

I am wondering here if in some twisted way that you get off on this drama.

Trust me you will NOT win this one, whatever sort of outcome you want. The only person sadly who will lose and be upset is your wife and that is not what you want. The most important thing I have learned as that though as a person one wants justice sometimes we have to accept that justice will never happen with a lot of cases. You are not a judge nor an MP and don't make laws. You would be wise to remember that.

SuzyZ

ILW wrote: »

I do get the impression that this whole affair is now about the OPs pride and very little else.

That was exactly what I posted below.

How on earth he expects to change a company's POV who have themselves changed HR templates (in relation to HR?) and got in HR experts is beyond me? who does he think he is, Superman?!

ILW

SuzyZ wrote: »

I am wondering here if in some twisted way that you get off on this drama.

)

That is the impression that I am getting.

marybelle01

ILW wrote: »

That is the impression that I am getting.

Yep - now going with this impression too. Plus wondering just how much this is about the principle and how much it is about the money, since the OP was driving without an MOT for six months - not exactly something you forget. I don't know whether it's the truth or not that the insurers paid out - after all, you can say anything here and there's no way we know what is the truth - but if they did then I think that is an appalling decision. Driving a vehcile which you do not know for a fact is roadworthy, and invalidating your insurance (because my insurers are damned clear that is what I am doing if I don't have a valid MOT) is just entirely irresponsible and an indication you have no concern or respect for other users of the road and pedestrians. Obviously the OP thinks he is above the law (shame he wasn't arrested). I suspect he is going to find that he isn't.

I'm out.

dacouch

marybelle01 wrote: »

Yep - now going with this impression too. Plus wondering just how much this is about the principle and how much it is about the money, since the OP was driving without an MOT for six months - not exactly something you forget. I don't know whether it's the truth or not that the insurers paid out - after all, you can say anything here and there's no way we know what is the truth - but if they did then I think that is an appalling decision. Driving a vehcile which you do not know for a fact is roadworthy, and invalidating your insurance (because my insurers are damned clear that is what I am doing if I don't have a valid MOT) is just entirely irresponsible and an indication you have no concern or respect for other users of the road and pedestrians. Obviously the OP thinks he is above the law (shame he wasn't arrested). I suspect he is going to find that he isn't.

I'm out.

Forgetting to have an MOT is not clever but it's not that unusual, even Nick Freeman got caught recently and he's not short of a quid.

Driving with an MOT does not mean your car is unroadworthy, driving without an MOT does not invalidate your policy. Even if your policy has a clause in it stating your car must have an MOT

marybelle01

dacouch wrote: »

Forgetting to have an MOT is not clever but it's not that unusual, even Nick Freeman got caught recently and he's not short of a quid.

Driving with an MOT does not mean your car is unroadworthy, driving without an MOT does not invalidate your policy. Even if your policy has a clause in it stating your car must have an MOT

My insurers say otherwise and I'm going to trust them over someone making a claim that illegally driving my car on the road is actually ok; and it is still illegal. And I didn't say that not having an MOT means your car is roadworthy - I said it meant you didn't know it is.

dacouch

Your Insurers are wrong.

Here is the Ombudsman rule on MOTs

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.

In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value."

Note the Ombudsman has a difference to "Roadworthyness" and the lack of an MOT

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

Here is the relevant rule from the FSA who regulate all Insurers

"An insurer must:

(3) not unreasonably reject a claim (including by terminating or avoiding a policy); and

A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:

(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach"

What it's saying in English is an Insurer cannot refuse a claim for an unrelated clause eg your house burns down due to a faulty washing machine but they had a clause in the policy saying you had to use certain locks and you did not use them.

In relation to a lack of an MOT it means the Insurer has to pay out unless the car was "Unroadworthy" AND the car being unroadworthy directly or significantly cause the accident eg you had faulty brakes and went into the back of someone. Not having an MOT does not make a car unroadworthy, you car could have got an MOT last week and be unroadworthy now.

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1

Here's the OP's relevant thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2353569 I can assure you that he's not the only one in his position that got the same advice and received a payment from their Insurers after initial refusal following advice from MSE members