Job app'n to join santander - reference information form

da_rule

Sounds like she needs some legal help really. If she was disciplined/dismissed from her last role because of her disability then this is a protected characteristic and the 2 year role doesn't apply (which I'm sure you already know).

Also, if she's getting that sort of abuse she needs to report (assuming she hasn't), an employer cannot act if they are not told.

Good luck in getting the document.

Bogalot

An investigation is part of the disciplinary process. She was being investigated during the suspension.

A disciplinary process starts from the point at which the person is notified they are being investigated for misconduct, the ACAS code is clear that the investigation is a key part of the process.

Failure to disclose an ongoing investigation is grounds for gross misconduct dismissal. Had she been honest at the time she would have had the opportunity to explain the situation, they may have still employed her. Instead she lied, she has shown herself to be untrustworthy, and that's not something a bank can overlook.

The disability is irrelevant to her misconduct - unless it somehow made her forget she was in the middle of a disciplinary process!

NeilCr

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Can ask Santander to supply, but like most HR staff they are incompetent and biased.

Can I just say how much I dislike nasty little snide remarks like this

I used to work in HR and have a number of friends still in that line of work. Over the years, there were many good people, some not so good and a few pretty useless. Indeed like most professions - and posters on Internet forums

HR are quite often the touching point between management and staff. Management will use them to do the dirty work - and by that I don't necessarily mean bending the rules but being the ones who end up being the bearer of bad news, Staff rail at them because they can't get at management etc. Oh - and you can advise management on proper procedures and rules but they'll overrule you if it suits them - and then you'll be the messenger

Sorry about the rant but this sort of thing p"""""s right off. Oh - and it's entirely unnecessary too

TELLIT01

NeilCr wrote: »

Can I just say how much I dislike nasty little snide remarks like this

I thought you'd been round the site long enough to know that some specialise in that area.:)

NeilCr

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I thought you'd been round the site long enough to know that some specialise in that area.:)

I know.

Perhaps I got out of bed the wrong side this morning!

Undervalued

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Yes, you are right da rule. To be blunt, Tellit is talking out of their exterior.

Yep, I have seen the wearesantander guff .... and yes, it does not appear to say ought about changes .... OR being under suspension for that matter.

Ideally need a copy of the actual form. Can ask Santander to supply, but like most HR staff they are incompetent and biased.

Yes, with less than 2 yrs employers can normally do whatever they want, but friend is disabled, and that's why she was bullied and picked on in last job. Thus her new employer needs to tread more carefully. She has already been called a wheelchair freak by new colleagues. Nice.

I fail to see much wrong with Tellit's post. I do however see rather more wrong with yours!

Currently they are investigating whether your friend has or has not lied in their application. How does her disability in any way affect that? I trust you are not looking for ways to play the disability card when it is not relevant?

If she has been mistreated because of her disability whilst working there then by all means address those issues through the proper channels.

Two wrongs however do not make a right.

PHILANTHROPIST

Hear what you all say and thanks.

Latter input from members may be right re a suspension being part and parcel of a disciplinary procedure. I had always seen the investigation and the disciplinary process as being two different entities, and not one procedure. This could be a matter of semantics. I have looked for case law on the matter, but can't identify any specific cases; anybody know of the leading case(s) in this subject area ?

My friend is innocent of the dismissal made by her old employer, which was motivated by an act of victimisation. So much so that the police are now interviewing her ex-manager/ perpetrator for criminal harassment/ hate crime. ET are also likely to grant an extension to time limit to take action against old employer, albeit limited to post termination discrimination/ victimisation, using Sn 108 of the Equality Act. Won't bore you with details of victimisation, but she was suspended by a manager in direct response to raising a grievance against same person.

Friend can also still take old employer to County Court for breach of contract ..i.e, to hopefully clear name.

Agree that she could have told new employer re debacle at old employer, but she was concerned that she would be rejected and victimised, and if she had taken ex-employer to ET then that may also make her come across as a troublemaker.

Question is whether her new employer will allow her time to now clear her name. Yes, they can just kick her out, but she is looking for a sense of perspective.

Neil - apologies for dig at HR staff - I've probably just been unfortunate to come across some under par performers.

Undervalued

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Hear what you all say and thanks.

Latter input from members may be right re a suspension being part and parcel of a disciplinary procedure. I had always seen the investigation and the disciplinary process as being two different entities, and not one procedure. I have looked for case law on the matter, but can't identify any specific cases; anybody know of the leading case(s) in this subject area ?

My friend is innocent of the dismissal made by her old employer, which was motivated by an act of victimisation. So much so that the police are now interviewing her ex-manager/ perpetrator for criminal harassment/ hate crime. ET are also likely to grant an extension to time limit to take action against old employer, albeit for post termination discrimination/ victimisation, using Sn 108 of the Equality Act. Won't bore you with details of victimisation, but she was suspended by a manager in direct response to raising a grievance against same person.

Friend can also still take old employer to County Court for breach of contract ..i.e, to hopefully clear name.

Agree that she could have told new employer re debacle at old employer, but she was concerned that she would be rejected and victimised, and if she had taken ex-employer to ET then that may also make her come across as a troublemaker.

Question is whether her new employer will allow her time to now clear her name. Yes, they can just kick her out, but she is looking for a sense of perspective.

Neil - apologies for dig at HR staff - I've probably just been unfortunate to come across some under par performers.

That may well be so but it does not mean she was entitled to lie to her new employer or give misleading answers to any questions.

If I understand it, that is what is being alleged (rightly or wrongly)?

Given that she has worked there less than two years they don't actually have to follow any procedure. It may be they are only doing so because of her disability for fear of being (unfairly) accused of discrimination.

As I said if she has genuinely suffered discrimination since being employed then that is a separate matter.

It is quite wrong however to use that as a lever to escape "justice" for her own misdemeanours. Going down that route does disabled people generally a great disservice so I hope that is not what is intended.

PHILANTHROPIST

You may be right Undervalued, but she genuinely thought that a suspension was not disciplinary action. Thus, she did not intentionally deceive ; in fact she may well still be right. We may be into semantics, but will ask an Employment Barrister friend for a definitive answer on Monday, and read relevant case law, re that subject.

You are spot on re reason for suspension, and agree that employer could just say pack your bags love. To date new employer's fact finding is not progressing very well. New manager interviewed her this week and prepared minutes. The minutes read like a set up. Thankfully, I told my firend to covertly record the "informal" meeting . The minutes bear little comparison to the actual words that were exchanged.

Given that we are looking at integrity issues, that hardly set's a good example for the new employer. Could argue that friend is being treated less favourably in this context. Conversely, it may be that all investigatory minutes are routinely fabricated by employer, and thus she cannot then be being treated differently !?

Bogalot

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Don't ordinarily condone using levers for justice, but when in a corner, use whatever ammunition is avaialble to you.

As a disabled person I can't tell you how offensive your proposed actions are. Why do you think employers are put off giving disabled applicants a chance? Because they're sick of frivolous complaints like the one you are proposing.

You're an abuser of disabled rights, rights that were fought long and hard for. You're a disgrace.

I've just remembered, you're the one that claims to be legally qualified. I'd say that you should be reported to your professional body, but it's quite clear that your claimed qualifcation is pie in the sky.