Job app'n to join santander - reference information form

PHILANTHROPIST

Thx Bogalot.

Please do not take this personally. The Met have today issued an harassment warning to her ex manager, and are interviewing other related parties - are they being duped ?

I have a right to defend a friend, as a barrister has a right to defend a murderer.

Undervalued

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

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.

Which is almost certainly gross misconduct in itself!

Although not a criminal offence (providing she only recorded when she was personally present) it is only under fairly rare circumstances that transcripts of such recordings are admitted as evidence at an ET.

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

As I said, two wrongs do not make a right but somehow I imagine you are going to use the Nixon approach and try a third!

Undervalued

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

I have a right to defend a friend, as a barrister has a right to defend a murderer.

No, the (alleged) murderer has the right to have someone present their defence to the charge, not to blackmail the prosecution by threatening to make false allegations!

PHILANTHROPIST

Undervalued wrote: »

Which is almost certainly gross misconduct in itself!

Although not a criminal offence (providing she only recorded when she was personally present) it is only under fairly rare circumstances that transcripts of such recordings are admitted as evidence at an ET.

Re above ; now you are starting to get carried away and further devaluing yourself .... one can accidentally leave their phone on .... and such recordings are generally admissible evidence in Tribunals. I should know - done it on at least 4 occasions.

Believe it or not, employers lie, and a tape recording avoids the .." he said ; she said scenario " .

sangie595

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Believe it or not, employers lie
.

And so, in your own words of confession, do you. Again....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?473899-Santander-suspended-from-work(6-Viewing)-nbsp

glosoli

Hi all. Just a quick update ..
.. and a response to the trolling abuse which has now appeared to sidetrack this thread.

Update
- The facts in the post were based on a merely hypothetical scenario in order to protect various parties.

The Police are now thankfully involved and progress is being made.

The disability issue was a red herring;
the friend is actually a person who has encountered sexual harassment and bullying issues.

Santandericon are not the employer;
I picked them bcos I bank with them, and they are in fact a good bank.

My friend's former and new employer are in fact nothing to do with the banking sector, more related to the rather unsavoury world of money lending.

will fill in more details in due course re the outcome of the allegations.

I cannot understand for the life of me why you begun this thread by asking for the Santander form, when you admit that Santander is not even the employer in question by your own admission. Are you seriously deluded or just an attention seeker? How can anyone believe a word that you say?

PHILANTHROPIST

Glosoli makes a good point above. Plain stupid may be the correct term for my approach. The thread has gone way off track and I am largely, or many may say wholely, to blame for that. Plank award for me.

Regardless, I was attempting to open up a discussion re an interesting area of employment law.

Could a moderator kindly delete any reference to the "bank" as it has nothing to do with them. I put in the firm's name as I bank with them and know that they do carry out pre-employment screening.

In case anyone still has the slightest interest in this thread here is an update of some feedback I have received.

Spoke to a barrister and ACAS today (re the latter this was to discuss the post made by Bogalot over the weekend re their Disciplinary and Grievance guidance).

Both agreed that it can be a grey area re whether a job applicant who is under "investigation" by their current employer (i.e. a pre-cursor to possible disciplinary action) should inform a prospective new employer of such information.

There is no duty to inform once the new job has commenced as per the case of Bell v Lever Bros. My friend has told me that she only learnt that she had been dismissed from her old job three weeks (!) after leaving her former employment when she received a back dated letter in the post notifying her of their decision.

The barrister is going to explore whether there is any case law in respect of the use of pre-employment questionnairres and the need, or otherwise, to inform a prospective employer re an ongoing "investigation" as distinct to a full blown disciplinary action.

Any constructive feedback welcomed.

Phil and Bel

Trumped_Up

Got to admire the member;s candidness.

I used to work at ACAS and the guidance re the above matter was a grey area,

As the Disciplinary and Grievance guide says ... it is only guidance. ACAS staff always stress that we are not in a position to offer legal advice ; just to offer guidance. For grey areas or semantics then callers are told to seek legal advice.