Disciplinary hearing

tomtontom

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Tom. Sticks and stones.... again.

You and ur alleged T'ing friends have no need to be concerned.

The choice is the members.

Not 'sticks and stones', just concern that someone who claims to be a legal professional cannot see (or chooses to disregard) the issues of risk and liability in giving advice on a private, 1-to-1 basis.

Can someone help me with the meaning of 'ur alleged T'ing friends' please?

Tiddlywinks

tomtontom wrote: »

Phil,

I find your frequent offers to help people privately rather concerning, and have to wonder why you feel it more suitable than doing so on the forum. This case is not in the least bit complicated, nor is it 'disturbing'. I know I am not the only forum member that has raised this issue - perhaps you could share your 'more specific guidance' on the open forum in order to allay our concerns?

I thought this as well...

Surely the advice will be generic enough (given it is in response to a third party enquiry) to be placed on an open forum.

Why the need to go 'private'?

PS - and before you ask, no, I am not Tom's buddy.... This is entirely my opinion.

Undervalued

I too am concerned by these repeated offers of advice by PM.

PHILANTHROPIST may well have expert knowledge and the best of intentions, I simply don't know. However, that is my point, neither does the person asking for help!

Nobody knows the expertise (or otherwise) of anybody who posts here. If the advice is kept on the forum there is at least the opportunity for anybody who disagrees to say so and explain why.

Unless anybody offering private advice is prepared to disclose their identity and qualifications in a way that can be verified I feel they should be prohibited from advising by PM.

I actually wonder why the forum has a PM service at all?

Sorry.

Southend1

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I thought this as well...

Surely the advice will be generic enough (given it is in response to a third party enquiry) to be placed on an open forum.

Why the need to go 'private'?

PS - and before you ask, no, I am not Tom's buddy.... This is entirely my opinion.

I agree with this

wapow

Probably because there are ways to play the system and not so generic.

Tiddlywinks

wapow wrote: »

Probably because there are ways to play the system and not so generic.

But why not for the public forum consumption?

wapow

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

But why not for the public forum consumption?

Avoid judgement and unnecessary comments.

slightlyconfused1

I completely understand Phil's point of view.

He has offered lots of good advice on this forum to many people. After posts on other threads the reactions were horrible, and to someone who knows a little about law, totally unfair and very personal. Why should he leave himself open to that?

I think it is great that he is still willing to offer advice. I don't think I would be so generous.

PHILANTHROPIST

slightlyconfused1 wrote: »

I completely understand Phil's point of view.

He has offered lots of good advice on this forum to many people. After posts on other threads the reactions were horrible, and to someone who knows a little about law, totally unfair and very personal. Why should he leave himself open to that?

I think it is great that he is still willing to offer advice. I don't think I would be so generous.

Thank you slightlyconfused. I was wondering when (or if lol) somebody would stand up for me.

I can assure Tom et al that I do not have any interest in becoming immersed in an internecine dialogue in an open forum.

Where Tom et al and I share common ground is that we care about helping members with employment law matters. That should be our focus.

Where we differ is that I may well have had to support many more people through the traumatic process of standing up for one's rights re employment law, in particular through an often one sided disciplinary process and worse still in an employment tribunal. I am used to receiving abuse from employers and their solicitors. It is usually a sign of weakness.

In an earlier post to this thread Tom you asserted that the OP's ....."case is not in the least bit complicated, nor is it 'disturbing'....." You are of course entitled to your opinion Tom. But, you may be wrong. The evidence affirms that allegations of wrongdoing and disciplinary action in the workplace, particularly if partly or wholly unfounded, are "disturbing" for most employees. You can be dismissed and be left with no income, no references and a tainted reputation. Many cases are complicated, unless of course an employee just caves in.

Re your concerns re use of the PM facility. It should be obvious, but in order to assist you and others I will seek to clarify.

Firstly, a PM can help to filter out the key facts and thus avoid unnecessarily cluttering up a thread or embarrassing the enquirer. More importantly, it may potentially prevent a frustrated employee stating in a public/ social media forum that they are not happy with and/or are seeking to lambaste their employer etc. In this thread one does not have to be rocket scientist to see that the OP may have come close to naming the employer. In fact, based on my experience I can hazard a guess which one. It may assist you Tom to learn that in a recent (disturbing) case I dealt with it came to light that a major employer's HR team were actually sad enough to legitimately peruse sites like MSE, in particular in instances when a disciplinary matter involving the likes of gross misconduct etc come to light. Sites such as the Redundancy Forum, MSE, can be a first port of call for employees reaching out for help. Even if an employer is not named per se a HR observer can draw inferences and gain an insight into an employee's mindset, thus helping the employer's cause.

In the above case, the employee regrettably named and shamed their employer on a social media employment sub forum and such evidence regrettably somewhat damaged an otherwise strong claim for unfair dismissal. That for the main part is what I was seeking to avoid for the OP. I apologise for not stating what I aver was blindingly obvious. What was also disturbing re the above case was that the "advice" given on said open employment forum was largely utter tosh and worse still misleading. That is not an accusation being directed at Tom et al per se, although your input does in my humble opinion sometimes lack detail re the law. I do, however, sense that you enjoy being combative, and may not like my style. That's fine. it's a free world.

Anyhow, hope that clarifies things somewhat. I hope that from hereon in we can all work together in a constructive manner to help MSE members with their (for the main part) rightful concerns.

BTW what has happened to the OP ?

P.S. re alleged T'ing ; I think you could have worked it out Tom. Anyhow, time to move on.

BillJones

Undervalued wrote: »

I too am concerned by these repeated offers of advice by PM.

I've felt the same way about them. It does come across as a bit strange.

Also, the forum is here not only to help posters, but as a source of advice for anyone googling with a similar situation. Giving the advice externally diminishes this.

I'd perhaps favour the board not allowing vulnerable people, in trouble, to be "enticed" away by a professional claiming to have their best interests at heart.