Facing possible dismissal.

getzls

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.

There is a Pub i used to drink in and the staff got the sack on a regular basics when money went missing.

starrystarry

sniggings wrote: »

I have just rang a friend who works in a court and he says I am correct, all the cases he has heard has found for the employee.

I knew I was correct but it's good to get someone that works in a court to confirm it.

:rotfl:

"Works in a court"? Judge? Barrister? Cleaner?

marybelle01

sniggings wrote: »

I have just rang a friend who works in a court and he says I am correct, all the cases he has heard has found for the employee.

I knew I was correct but it's good to get someone that works in a court to confirm it.

And I just rung up my 23 barrister friends and the 3 High Court judges I know. They all say that you are wrong and everyone else here is right.

You are, at best, seriously misleading the OP. You are making stuff up - who said there were 4 people in the room, because the OP certainly didn't! You have no facts at all because NONE of us do! We know the employer says that one of 4 people (or possibly all 4 in cahoots) could have stolen the money. It is up to the employer to prove they have reasonable belief of that argument. And if they CAN prove that, then it doesn't matter if person 2003 on their list of suspects stole it - providing the sack everyone it is legally fair.

And at that I give up because at worst you are trolling and deliberately misleading the OP. The OP can beliebe who they want - the convenient or the correct. And to be clear - you are the convenient. You have clearly never set foot in a tribunal in your life and know nothing about them. I would hardly claim to be an expert - but I know shed loads more than you.

By the way - how did you get this expertise? Based on your legal qualifications? Your decades as an employer or manager? Your skills as a trades union rep? Oops - none of the above is it???

MissSarah1972

sniggings wrote: »

I have just rang a friend who works in a court and he says I am correct, all the cases he has heard has found for the employee.

I knew I was correct but it's good to get someone that works in a court to confirm it.

You have really done that? LOL :rotfl:

MissSarah1972

marybelle01 wrote: »

And I just rung up my 23 barrister friends and the 3 High Court judges I know. They all say that you are wrong and everyone else here is right.

That just made me laugh - thanks.

DVardysShadow

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.

A reasonable belief that one of A B C and D did it is

• not of itself a reasonable belief that A did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that B did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that C did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that D did it

A reasonable belief that A B C and D did it with collusion may be

• a reasonable belief that A did it
• a reasonable belief that B did it
• a reasonable belief that C did it
• a reasonable belief that D did it

marybelle01

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A reasonable belief that one of A B C and D did it is

• not of itself a reasonable belief that A did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that B did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that C did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that D did it

A reasonable belief that A B C and D did it with collusion may be

• a reasonable belief that A did it
• a reasonable belief that B did it
• a reasonable belief that C did it
• a reasonable belief that D did it

Evidence that a lot of posts does not equate to intelligence or being correct.

DVardysShadow

marybelle01 wrote: »

Evidence that a lot of posts does not equate to intelligence or being correct.

1315 is a lot of posts and you have not dazzled me with your intelligence or correctness [if any].

If you could have knocked down what I wrote with logic or reason, you would have done. The essence of this is that what you are asserting as being a reasonable belief in law, in truth is not a reasonable belief.

SMD+AD

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

OP - why do you think that you will be sacked over and above the other 3 who did handle the money/have access to it?

Because I have been suspended and a disciplinary hearing is to be arranged, the others gave statements and that's all. I have an appointment with a solicitor on Monday and will be taking advise on what my next move will be, I have read about the Burchell Test that employers should use in cases like this, its my view that they have failed to pass this test - hopefully that will be the case.

Anyway to get back to the point of my question, if the jsa/insurance lifeline is cut I'm finished, tribunals take approx 6 months to complete, by then I will be penny-less and homeless, and likely unemployable. And all for something I didn't do.

Yorkie1

Sounds like the other 3 have colluded to name you, if they haven't been suspended and you have. Can you think of any reason this might occur? Are you in a union?