Legally is an employer allowed to.....

Savvy_Sue

To be fair, it's perfectly possible for a normally upright and law-abiding citizen to drive around for several months without an MOT. If you've managed to get the MOT and tax disc 'out of sync' then it can very easily slip your mind. And if your MOT appointment is cancelled because of heavy snow, and another is made for a week's time but the snow is still gripping your area so it's cancelled until the thaw, but then it just slips your mind, you may well only realise when you come to renew your tax disc. And if at that stage your car is beetling up the M1 with your son at the wheel and his mobile phone switched off (because he's driving!), a certain amount of panic will follow ...

Not me, honest!

However, that doesn't change the rest of the facts. And I don't think the OP has grasped how ETs work. At all.

sho_me_da_money

Uncertain wrote: »

No it is not!

It is an employment dispute which, if it ever gets as far as a tribunal, a decision will be made as to whether or not the employers actions were within the range of reasonable responses. That is all.

All that matters is that the employer conducted an investigation and that it was reasonable for them to have held that belief at the time.

.

It wasn't reasonable.

Initially, the employer invited her to a disciplinary without holding an investigation therefore proving they were bias and prejudged her without holding an investigation.

Sambucus_Nigra

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

To be fair, it's perfectly possible for a normally upright and law-abiding citizen to drive around for several months without an MOT. If you've managed to get the MOT and tax disc 'out of sync' then it can very easily slip your mind.

Agreed - for the first time ever our camper's MOT was due in Jan but as we bought and insured/taxed it in Sept we only realised in April when sat in a car park reading the little tiny 'your MOT is due 28th Jan 2012' sign stuck to the passenger's side window. Whoops. Cue careful drive home and swift booking into local garage.

SuzyZ

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

It wasn't reasonable.

Initially, the employer invited her to a disciplinary without holding an investigation therefore proving they were bias and prejudged her without holding an investigation.

I still think you really do not get this.

OK, *originally* the employer invited her to a disciplinary without holding an investigation which YES proved they were bias and prejudged her.

Going on what you've posted afterwards though they now ARE holding an investigation which proves they are unbiased.

Do you really, honestly think a tribunal would uphold your complaint based on that 1 point alone?

The employers are the employers and regardless of what you may think if they've acted correctly second time round I highly doubt the tribunal will find in your favour.

Can I ask? Is it really you or your wife who is after a good outcome? and an honest answer not just what YOU would like.

SuzyZ

Uncertain wrote: »

No it is not!

For heaven's sake, despite the best efforts of a number of regular posters on this thread (who understand more about employment matters than you ever will), you totally fail to grasp the basics!

This is not a criminal matter where a jury or magistrates must be convinced of a person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not even a civil matter which is decided on the balance of probabilities. It is an employment dispute which, if it ever gets as far as a tribunal, a decision will be made as to whether or not the employers actions were within the range of reasonable responses. That is all.

It is perfectly possible, not that you will understand this, to be fairly dismissed (in law) for a "crime" of which you are later proved to be totally innocent. All that matters is that the employer conducted an investigation and that it was reasonable for them to have held that belief at the time.

PLEASE read and think about what you have been told on this thread and be grateful that people have given the time.

I have been following this on and off - for the poster to bang on about 'a court of law' shows that he knows virtually nothing about HR/tribunals etc.

I think the OP has ideas above his station in that he either sees himself as a male version of Judge Judy or has been watching too much CSI or other American crime/order programmes.

From reading through his previous posts he seems to be all the time bringing these cases whether it be for driving offences, for his brother, friend of a friend etc.

It is quite sad that he wants to submit his wife to this ordeal when they obviously *don't need the money* where there are other cases where they *do need the money* and public resources will be wasted funding this really un-needed tribunal to fund one man's ego. :eek:

saintjammyswine

Why is OP having a pop at MSE posters being wrong whilst at the same time still asking the same posters questions?

CFC

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Sue

The company:

1. Informed her of a disciplinary meeting on a Friday inviting her to attend on a Monday without holding an investigation meeting? The rule of adequate time comes into play.

This is procedure?

That's adequate notice, 48 hours.
Not holding an investigation meeting was unwise.

2. The letter stated the allegation of bullying of harrassment will be dealt in accordance to the disciplinary issue and a child being hurt will be dealt as a performance issue that may require additional training (something you mentioned). Two Separate matters in one confusing letter. They also did not warn her of any potential dismissal as a result of this case.

This is procedure?

They can cover two matters in a disciplinary. Failing to notify her of potential dismissal was a mistake.

3. My wife continued to work for 4 weeks without suspension. She then went on sick leave when she received a NEW disciplinary letter outling more issues with her work. They also retracted the original performance issue and made it in a formal allegation all. whilst she was in the state of recovery

This is procedure?

That was a mess up if they intended to dismiss from the start! however, there's no problem with suspending someone when they are sick. They may also have discovered more issues in the course of time which made them want to progress to suspension and a fuller hearing of other issues in addition to the ones already notified.

4. Upon her expected return (next week), she was forwarded another new letter stating that she is not to return as she is suspended on full pay?

This is procedure? or should she have been suspended at the outset?

They may have discovered other issues which prompted the suspension.

Yes, they rectified all these issues leading up to the hearing but the fact is they butchered up the procedure and improved there position as it went on - making it right, adding things, changing things etc etc.

How the hell is this procedure?

It's called rectifying mistakes.


Now do you want what I personally feel about this? Here:

1. The company has no HR dept and made it up as they went along
2. The company has no risk assessments and therefore had improper practices in place.
3. The company has changed like a chameleon in this whole process.

Of course, my personal feelings are not in play here. This is going to come down to proving who is right or wrong in the court of law.

And it's not going to be you in the right. Dismissal sounds entirely reasonable and that's all it has to be, a reasonable response. Oh, the company MAY get criticised. I bet they are shaking in their shoes at that thought.

You are far too close to this to have good judgement, and if your wife is sick and you want to expose her to all this stress you are more attached to your pride than you are to her.

And if you want the money for an unfair dismissal you're a mug.

VitaK

A word of caution. Please be carefull with details and information that can be used to link to an ongoing disciplinary. You have not done anyone a favor if caught out. Even if you are just trying to help.

Bringing a company in shame, even if the company is not directly named, is never a good thing. It could be a disciplinary in itself.

Try to google seach with these words:
Disciplinary, Vendetta, Injury, Unfair and Ofsted-ratio.

Mischa8

VitaK wrote: »

A word of caution. Please be carefull with details and information that can be used to link to an ongoing disciplinary. You have not done anyone a favor if caught out. Even if you are just trying to help.

Bringing a company in shame, even if the company is not directly named, is never a good thing. It could be a disciplinary in itself.

Try to google seach with these words:
Disciplinary, Vendetta, Injury, Unfair and Ofsted-ratio.

Actually - the OP has volunteered this info quite willingly. Having said that though haven't tried the google bit.

Mischa8

CFC wrote: »

And it's not going to be you in the right. Dismissal sounds entirely reasonable and that's all it has to be, a reasonable response. Oh, the company MAY get criticised. I bet they are shaking in their shoes at that thought.

You are far too close to this to have good judgement, and if your wife is sick and you want to expose her to all this stress you are more attached to your pride than you are to her.

And if you want the money for an unfair dismissal you're a mug.

At last - sanity. I personally hope he loses. waste of taxpayers money even bringing this to tribunal.