We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Confused!
Comments
-
I refer you to paragraph 2 in my initial post.
One has to chair the meeting, so that if you appeal, the other investgates that appeal. As there are only 2 Directors, it makes sense to do it that way round.If you haven't got it - please don't flaunt it. TIA.0 -
yes he is my boss, and yes the one i referred to in the original post.0
-
If the management structure comprises two individuals, it may be tricky to allege contaminated proccess.
You may wish to consider puting a toe in the water around exiting under a compromise agreement.Don’t be a can’t, be a can.0 -
-
Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »How is it contaminated?
Its not, I neither said or implied it was.
I'm simply stating if the op wants to run with this then demonstrating process impropriety will be somewhat difficult.Don’t be a can’t, be a can.0 -
It's really simple stuff here - it just seems to have got complicated. You set up a facebook page to do market research aka ask people questions.You therefore took no orders and accepted no commissions because this was only market research. Simples!
Of course, if you took orders for business from a site you set up in competition with your employers - then it gets complicated. Because your boss then didn't set up a "fake e-mail address" - he set up ANOTHER e-mail address, which any of us can do - and YOU sold him a product. The issue then becomes whether you had a right to set up in competition with your own employer.0 -
marybelle01 wrote: »It's really simple stuff here - it just seems to have got complicated. You set up a facebook page to do market research aka ask people questions.You therefore took no orders and accepted no commissions because this was only market research. Simples!
Of course, if you took orders for business from a site you set up in competition with your employers - then it gets complicated. Because your boss then didn't set up a "fake e-mail address" - he set up ANOTHER e-mail address, which any of us can do - and YOU sold him a product. The issue then becomes whether you had a right to set up in competition with your own employer.
I assumed that he had taken the order as he referred to 'customer'.If you haven't got it - please don't flaunt it. TIA.0 -
As for correct procedures, in an ideal world, person A would raise the complaint, person B would investigate, person C would be the disciplinary officer and person D would be the appeal officer. However, this is not a legal requirement. The Company must approach disciplinaries reasonably, but with due consideration given to the size of the Company and the resources available to it. For example, an appeal officer need not be senior to the disciplinary officer but must have authority to overrule the disciplinary officer's decision and be able to act impartially - usually it would be a senior employee, but not necessarily.
I would suggest this sounds like a small Company and they have used the resources available to them.0 -
Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »I assumed that he had taken the order as he referred to 'customer'.
Yes, so did I. In which case he has probably answered his own question! Employers generally don't take too kindly to direct competition from their own staff. It's that whole breach of trust and confidence thing (at best). So it wasn't "market research". It was something else. It was the something else that got him into trouble - not market research!0 -
'the same person who made the complaint also held the investigatory meeting and the disciplinary hearing'
OP, this is perfectly legal and normal in a small company. and you were definitely caught acting against your employers interests.
Really, they were trying to do you a favour by letting you resign instead of being dismissed.
Anyway, try and learn one or two lessons from all this but to look on the positive side, maybe this'll be the shove you need to commit to your own business and it'll be a great success.Cash not ash from January 2nd 2011: £2565.:j
OU student: A103 , A215 , A316 all done. Currently A230 all leading to an English Literature degree.
Any advice given is as an individual, not as a representative of my firm.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards