Prep for Disciplinary hearing

[Deleted User]

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

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

Somebody within the company left a trolley with a baby in blocking a corridor.

Undervalued

tommytynan123 wrote: »

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.

They may be "interesting points" but most are irrelevant to your son's disciplinary situation.

All that actually matters is point 2 on your list. You sum the situation up correctly in the first sentence of your last paragraph.....

All in all he has been stupid and knows it.

He has been sensible enough to put his hand up and apologise so all he can hope is that they appreciate that and give him a second / final chance.

Yes it is unsettling that someone apparently "has it in for him" and has seemingly claimed to have witnessed something which they could only have been aware of by hearsay. Clearly, if he is reinstated he needs to watch his back.

[Deleted User]

Also for someone who is an assistant manager it will be bad to have a written warning on his file which will probably scupper any future promotion in the near future.

Once the live period for the written warning has past, usually 6 or 12 months (providing he doesn't get dismissed) I'd be looking for employment elsewhere so he can further his career unblemished.

tommytynan123

Until the inquiry started no-one knew the actual content of the photo. The 2 main players (witness and 3rd person) assumed it was of the baby which in fact it wasn't. This was obvious when he produced the photo from snapchat which was still available only because his mate had an 'app' to save them. Son knew he had an 'app' from 2 weeks previous during a stag do in Bristol when someone said something like ''its a shame snapchat is self deleting'' when discussing the previous days events. Thats when mate said ''I've got an 'app' etc''
As I mentioned earlier - had he turned up at the hearing and said ''what photo?'' the whole thing would have been hearsay.

The store allow customers to use the loo in the staff area if they ask. He was only aware of the trolley + unattended baby + parent in loo when he arrived to get his bag. The witness had also just clocked out and was waiting for access.

Since the initial letter he has not been in contact with any staff as instructed. However, they send him information to which he does not reply. He is well liked there! Yesterday the 2 main players were seen having a fag together outside when son thought they were on leave. If they had been called in for an interview together, thus more chance of collusion then that is unbelievable. He is saying nothing to anyone except me and steering well clear of the store and staff.

It'll all be over soon - I hope.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

For the 50th time, can you confirm that the "prison" remark was unknown to the company, had nothing to do with the disciplinary meeting and needn't have been brought up here?

If your son presented the facts the way you do I'm amazed he isn't in prison now.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Deleted_User wrote: »

Somebody within the company left a trolley with a baby in blocking a corridor.

Who do you think brings a trolley with a baby in it to a supermarket? A staff member or a customer?

[Deleted User]

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Who do you think brings a trolley with a baby in it to a supermarket? A staff member or a customer?

Well it's hard to tell seeing as it was in a staff-only area!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

You might find it hard to tell; I doubt most people would.

sangie595

Oh goodness. How often does it need to be said? Amateur Sherlock wanna be's need not apply to disciplinary panels. What he did, he did and has rightly admitted to it. It doesn't matter whether he typed prison or heaven. It doesn't matter if he typed nothing. Counting angels dancing on a pin head does not work at disciplinary hearings. If he's lucky, he'll get away with this because of the malice involved in the report. But he probably won't get away Scott free because he "did it". He did something. And he shouldn't have. And he now knows that. Harsh? Maybe. But that's the bottom line. Trying to dissect whether he was seen typing prison, or who saw what and how, how the trolley got there and whose baby it was - not even slightly relevant. The test is "does the employer have enough evidence to establish a reasonable belief". They did. And he is just so very lucky that there is mitigating circumstance that may act in his favour. If it weren't for that, the testimony of two people and CCTV of the photo being taken would have easily been enough to form reasonable belief.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

Oh goodness. How often does it need to be said? Amateur Sherlock wanna be's need not apply to disciplinary panels. What he did, he did and has rightly admitted to it. It doesn't matter whether he typed prison or heaven. It doesn't matter if he typed nothing. Counting angels dancing on a pin head does not work at disciplinary hearings. If he's lucky, he'll get away with this because of the malice involved in the report. But he probably won't get away Scott free because he "did it". He did something. And he shouldn't have. And he now knows that. Harsh? Maybe. But that's the bottom line. Trying to dissect whether he was seen typing prison, or who saw what and how, how the trolley got there and whose baby it was - not even slightly relevant. The test is "does the employer have enough evidence to establish a reasonable belief". They did. And he is just so very lucky that there is mitigating circumstance that may act in his favour. If it weren't for that, the testimony of two people and CCTV of the photo being taken would have easily been enough to form reasonable belief.

Has he admitted to the "prison" remark? I haven't seen that said. How and why has he admitted to it, given they didn't know about it and presumably never asked him about it?

I don't think the "prison remark" has anything to do with it. It's all about taking a photo of the baby. But he won't confirm that, so I don't know how you are so sure, whether I am an "Amateur Sherlock" or not. I know it's all about what the company choose to believe, but there's no reason to believe the disciplinary panel is even considering the infamous prison remark as any part of the alleged offence. That's what I am trying to confirm.