Facing possible dismissal.

sniggings

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

Phone on predictive text wrote your then I added 're just like you writing your ok!!!


Yeah I am sad like you who wishes me not to have a job. Nasty piece of work.

So lets get this right, you typed in your on your phone instead of you, then added 're:rotfl: seems you were making the same mstake I did, at the same time as trying to correct me.


I'm nasty! you come on the thread and your input is to pickup on my grammar :eek:

antrobus

Uncertain wrote: »

In the days of capital punishment there were several examples where all of the people involved in a crime hanged even though only one of them pulled the trigger.

The same would apply today (although we wouldn't hang them). It's called 'joint enterprise'.

Uncertain wrote: »

...Not that it is directly relevant!

I don't think it is either.

MissSarah1972

sniggings wrote: »

So lets get this right, you typed in your on your phone instead of you, then added 're:rotfl: seems you were making the same mstake I did, at the same time as trying to correct me.


I'm nasty! you come on the thread and your input is to pickup on my grammar :eek:

No I typed 'you' and the predictive text put your and I didn't see ok. I am just using a motorola u9 not a iphone or something!!!

You came on my thread about a job at Boots and said you were glad I didn't get an interview!!!! That's nasty.

marybelle01

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

Surely as the OP has said 'The others actually had a greater chance of stealing it because they handled it as part of their job' the OP couldn't have taken it unless one of the other 3 gave it to them?

My old firm could have just sacked all 7 of us and did no investigation but they did as they had to find out where the £ went and found it was the accounts manager.

They may have had a greater chance of stealing it - that doesn't mean that the OP didn't have a chance of stealing it. If the employer can establish that each of these four people could have stolen the money then they can dismiss all four fairly. I didn't say they could establish that - I said that this is what the law says. If the OP was never anywhere near the money and had no access to the money then why would the employer even consider them a suspect? The employer may be wrong - but they must have some reason for suspecting the OP.

MissSarah1972

marybelle01 wrote: »

They may have had a greater chance of stealing it - that doesn't mean that the OP didn't have a chance of stealing it. If the employer can establish that each of these four people could have stolen the money then they can dismiss all four fairly. I didn't say they could establish that - I said that this is what the law says. If the OP was never anywhere near the money and had no access to the money then why would the employer even consider them a suspect? The employer may be wrong - but they must have some reason for suspecting the OP.

Maybe it's easier for them to just get rid of 4 than to work out who did it.

sniggings

marybelle01 wrote: »

Not wrong at all. The legal precedent is that if you cannot prove which one of four did it then you must dismiss all four or none - you cannot sack just one or that would definitely be unfair dismissal.

you're missing the point, it's a reasonable belief that the person did it NOT a reasonable belief that they could have taken the money.

Having access to the money is not enough, the money going missing is not enough if more than one person could have did it, you would then have to have a belief to why the person you were sacking took the money and not one of the other 3, to sack all 4 because you do not have a reasonable relief which one took it is not allowed.

sniggings

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

You came on my thread about a job at Boots and said you were glad I didn't get an interview!!!! That's nasty.

Here is the thread, nowhere on this thread do I say I was glad you didn't get an interview.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4148335

I was making the point that the Boots interview process is daft, I was trying to do this in a light hearted way but for some reason you didn't want to take it that way.

marybelle01

sniggings wrote: »

you're missing the point, it's a reasonable belief that the person did it NOT a reasonable belief that they could have taken the money.

Having access to the money is not enough, the money going missing is not enough if more than one person could have did it, you would then have to have a belief to why the person you were sacking took the money and not one of the other 3, to sack all 4 because you do not have a reasonable relief which one took it is not allowed.

And YOU are missing the point that the employers reasonable belief can legally be that one of the four did it, so to get the right one they are sacking all of them.

sniggings

marybelle01 wrote: »

And YOU are missing the point that the employers reasonable belief can legally be that one of the four did it, so to get the right one they are sacking all of them.

then the belief is based on nothing.

If this went to court, the employer would have to give his reasons on what grounds he based his belief, his only grounds would be the money has gone, but as there were 4 people in the room it would be unreasonable to conclude without any other facts or beliefs based on something reasonable that the person before the court was the one that had taken the money.
The case would be between the OP and the employer, the employer would have to show a belief the OP took the money not could have taken it.

pickpocketlocket

sniggings wrote: »

then the belief is based on nothing.

If this went to court, the employer would have to give his reasons on what grounds he based his belief, his only grounds would be the money has gone, but as there were 4 people in the room it would be unreasonable to conclude without any other facts or beliefs based on something reasonable that the person before the court was the one that had taken the money.
The case would be between the OP and the employer, the employer would have to show a belief the OP took the money not could have taken it.

You have no idea of how employment tribunals work, including the standard of proof required. I don't know why you keep commenting on things that you do not understand? You are wasting peoples time, and your own!