Prep for Disciplinary hearing

Undervalued

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

In a private text to somebody unconnected with the company?

I still don't know how anyone is supposed to know he used the word prison, let alone be able to prove it.

As said before, they don't have to "prove it". A disciplinary hearing is not a court of law and an employer only needs a "reasonable belief", not proof, that the misconduct took place. Depending on the circumstances one person saying that is what the message said may be enough to give them a reasonable belief.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Undervalued wrote: »

As said before, they don't have to "prove it". A disciplinary hearing is not a court of law and an employer only needs a "reasonable belief", not proof, that the misconduct took place. Depending on the circumstances one person saying that is what the message said may be enough to give them a reasonable belief.

Who, though? That's the whole point. Who on earth read the message on his screen as he wrote it and then reported it?? it doesn't make a scrap of sense.

sangie595

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to us. It makes sense to the employer. And whilst I disagree with JReacher1's suggestion that they would sack him, I do agree that the new information does change the perspective. I had assumed, based on the post and the description of the colleagues, that this all amounted to a spat between store staff. The fact that we are talking now about someone of management grade does make a tremendous difference. His behaviour was stupid as a shop floor worker. Indescribably stupid for a manager. I hope that he's learned a valuable lesson from this, and thinks before he acts in future. And yes, a manager, even in jest, describing their employment as a prison would tend to go down like a lead balloon. I suspect that his admission it was stupid and he recognised that was as much to do with the leniency as anything else.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to us. It makes sense to the employer. And whilst I disagree with JReacher1's suggestion that they would sack him, I do agree that the new information does change the perspective. I had assumed, based on the post and the description of the colleagues, that this all amounted to a spat between store staff. The fact that we are talking now about someone of management grade does make a tremendous difference. His behaviour was stupid as a shop floor worker. Indescribably stupid for a manager. I hope that he's learned a valuable lesson from this, and thinks before he acts in future. And yes, a manager, even in jest, describing their employment as a prison would tend to go down like a lead balloon. I suspect that his admission it was stupid and he recognised that was as much to do with the leniency as anything else.

What doesn't make sense is how anyone was close enough to him to read the text as he wrote it. That still hasn't been explained. You are talking about somebody standing with him, reading it as it writes it. Somebody must have claimed to the employer that they were doing this for the employer to know anything about the word "jail" or about a text being sent. A friend close enough for him to let read his text, who has then reported him.
CCTV shows him taking a photo of a trolley with a baby in it. Where on earth has all the rest come from?

tommytynan123

Wow - some interesting points guys.
1. He didn't approach the trolley/baby to take a photo. He was walking towards the locker room and was halted by the trolley which blocked the whole corridor.
2. The photo was taken in jest showing the trolley blocking the way and when I first saw it I had to look twice because on first glance it was like bars on a cell. It was that close up. I don't use snapchat but I'm told you can add silly things to photos and send. He added the words about prison (in jest) and sent to his mate.
3. The other person never saw the photo but saw him take a picture (or heard him take it) She had no idea of the words he had inserted. This is backed up by CCTV as the other person was never that close and was never shown the phone picture. Her statement, which also claims she picked up the baby, passed to him and he put it down, was proved to be absolute lies on CCTV.
4. The incident broke about 2 weeks later when the other person was chatting to the 3rd person (who has it in for son) and for some reason mentioned it. 3rd person grabbed the moment and complained to the manager quoting what she had been told including movement of the baby between them. 3rd person also coerced the witness to the incident to lie about other matters.
5. For some reason the witness then had a guilt trip and sent son the messages between her and the 3rd person linked to lying. The 3rd person was managing the situation concerning lies and is, in fact, the witnesses superior.

All in all he has been stupid and knows it. However the coercion is, in my view, a far worse offence.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

So the "prison" thing was completely unknown to the employer, yes? You keep mentioning it but give no way how they could possibly know it ever happened.

[Deleted User]

Why was there an unattended trolley with a baby in it blocking a corridor in the first place? What is the company policy on that? Should the corridor be blocked? Is it part of a fire escape route? Sounds like it is if it leads from the locker room.

I hate companies that play lip service to health and safety and fire regulations in general.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

I doubt it was the company that left a baby in a corridor.

andrewmp

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I doubt it was the company that left a baby in a corridor.

Nobody leaves baby in a corridor.

ReadingTim

tommytynan123 wrote: »

All in all he has been stupid and knows it. However the coercion is, in my view, a far worse offence.

It might indeed be the worse offence. But it's not the offence which is being dealt with.

In an ideal world, the company would realise your son had been a bit stupid, given him a rap over the knuckles and then look into why all of this had been blown out of proportion, whereupon these false allegations etc would be uncovered, the person who had it in for him be unmasked, and justice be done.

But it doesn't work like that. The story stops after the rap over the knuckles, so he (and you) are best off taking it like a man and spending the rest of your time and energy avoiding said troublemaker and not giving them further ammunition to harm your son's record with said employer.

In other words, pick your battles, because this is not one you can, or indeed should, try and win.