Empolyment Tribunal

libi

Evidences are statements from the victims and ours. The victims claiming we made offensive comments (also admitting that we never talked to them directly) in a public place and we denied that. Three of us was involved and two of us has been dismissed.

I think i`ve heard enough to withdrawn the claim. Thanks all of your time and answers. I have had my own doubts with this but wanted to see different opinions.

Comms69

libi wrote: »

Evidences are statements from the victims and ours. The victims claiming we made offensive comments (also admitting that we never talked to them directly) in a public place and we denied that. Three of us was involved and two of us has been dismissed.

I think i`ve heard enough to withdrawn the claim. Thanks all of your time and answers. I have had my own doubts with this but wanted to see different opinions.

Did you make offensive comments, and if so, what were they?

libi

Comms69 wrote: »

Did you make offensive comments, and if so, what were they?

No, i did not make anything like that. But the allegation was we made homophobic comments, like "all homosexual should be shot"

cmthephoenix

libi wrote: »

No, i did not make anything like that. But the allegation was we made homophobic comments, like "all homosexual should be shot"

So is that a true allegation even if taken out of the context it was meant?


I was helping someone with their NHS job application and one of the questions was what her sexuality was so I asked her and her response was "I'm normal" and I was like !!!!!! don't even say anything remotely like that in the interview.

libi

cmthephoenix wrote: »

So is that a true allegation even if taken out of the context it was meant?

No, non of us are homophobic.

Comms69

cmthephoenix wrote: »

So is that a true allegation even if taken out of the context it was meant?


I was helping someone with their NHS job application and one of the questions was what her sexuality was so I asked her and her response was "I'm normal" and I was like !!!!!! don't even say anything remotely like that in the interview.

Haha, to be honest there's too many terms these days!

Comms69

libi wrote: »

No, non of us are homophobic.

That wasn't the question though.


Things can be taken out of context. You don't have to be racist to make a racist remark; and conversely not all racists make racist remarks.


We all have prejudices, beliefs and morals - none of which is a crime. It's how you act that matters

sangie595

I am gobsmacked that any union officer suggested that a member would not be dismissed for making homophobic comments. I would say that if they were found guilty of it, dismissal was an almost certainty, and not being dismissed would be a miracle that indicated a real need to never put a foot wrong ever again.

But the core of this is that there are witnesses who said that the comments were made, and the employer decided that the more credible of the version was those witnesses. That is the test of reasonable belief. In the end, yes, an employer can choose to believe who they think is telling the truth. This is not a court of law, and disciplinary situations often arise around multiple people involved and different versions of facts. Not being able to categorically prove those facts is the nature of many situations, so they cannot always go with the idea that absolute evidence must be provided. Bullying is a classic case in point. Discrimination is another.

Would a reasonable employer dismiss someone for saying something homophobic. Yes, absolutely.

I am interested in why three people were accused and only two dismissed though. Is this because one person apologised or wasn't involved in the remarks? Because this seems odd. No particularly, necessarily, in a legal way. But an employer who dismisses for this kind of thing usually dismisses everyone. What changed their minds?

libi

sangie595 wrote: »

I am gobsmacked that any union officer suggested that a member would not be dismissed for making homophobic comments. I would say that if they were found guilty of it, dismissal was an almost certainty, and not being dismissed would be a miracle that indicated a real need to never put a foot wrong ever again.

But the core of this is that there are witnesses who said that the comments were made, and the employer decided that the more credible of the version was those witnesses. That is the test of reasonable belief. In the end, yes, an employer can choose to believe who they think is telling the truth. This is not a court of law, and disciplinary situations often arise around multiple people involved and different versions of facts. Not being able to categorically prove those facts is the nature of many situations, so they cannot always go with the idea that absolute evidence must be provided. Bullying is a classic case in point. Discrimination is another.

Would a reasonable employer dismiss someone for saying something homophobic. Yes, absolutely.

I am interested in why three people were accused and only two dismissed though. Is this because one person apologised or wasn't involved in the remarks? Because this seems odd. No particularly, necessarily, in a legal way. But an employer who dismisses for this kind of thing usually dismisses everyone. What changed their minds?

There was no any more witnesses. There was the victims statement and ours. So never has been proven the comments has been made. But seems like we were lying, to cover each other.
Witness statement clearly state all tree of us involvement was the same. However their statement slightly changed as the investigation carried forward.
The person who wasn`t disciplined was about to leave the company ( with a nice amount of money), also has the date of leaving. But he was still employed when we were suspended. ( His statement gone missing by the way )
Victims stated, they not pursuing any punishment just a face to face apology. <- never given the opportunity to do, even if I never made any of the alleged comments.

Comms69

libi wrote: »

There was no any more witnesses. There was the victims statement and ours. So never has been proven the comments has been made. But seems like we were lying, to cover each other.
Witness statement clearly state all tree of us involvement was the same. However their statement slightly changed as the investigation carried forward.
The person who wasn`t disciplined was about to leave the company ( with a nice amount of money), also has the date of leaving. But he was still employed when we were suspended. ( His statement gone missing by the way )
Victims stated, they not pursuing any punishment just a face to face apology. <- never given the opportunity to do, even if I never made any of the alleged comments.

What the victim wants is irrelevant.


It sounds like something WAS said, either out of context or misheard/spoken.