Appeal Against Dismissal

JReacher1

marliepanda wrote: »

So why even bother holding disciplinary meetings. If ten people are in trouble for something, just give one a meeting and then whatever you do to that person, do to the rest!

It would be unfair to discipline someone without giving them the right to reply in a formal hearing with appropriate representation.

marliepanda

JReacher1 wrote: »

It would be unfair to discipline someone without giving them the right to reply in a formal hearing with appropriate representation.

Although surely unfair to hold such a hearing if you have already sacked Person 1 and therefore have no choice but to sack person 2/3/4 etc regardless of their reply and representation...

JReacher1

marliepanda wrote: »

Although surely unfair to hold such a hearing if you have already sacked Person 1 and therefore have no choice but to sack person 2/3/4 etc regardless of their reply and representation...

As long as they show consistency in how they treat everyone then the hearing would be perfectly fair.

marliepanda

JReacher1 wrote: »

As long as they show consistency in how they treat everyone then the hearing would be perfectly fair.

I guess I dont see how a foregone conclusion is fair.

Wayne_O_Mac

Les79 wrote: »

I did a year or two on the phones and despised people like your friend(s) who thought they could get one up on hard-working people who did answer the calls. Most notably when someone next in line for a call 1 minute before close decided to manipulate their position in the queue so that I end up on the last call of the day (sometimes, for a laugh, I used to put people like that on high priority for the last 10 mins of the shift so that they couldn't manipulate their position! It is satisfying watching an agent get mad because, somehow, their attempt to dodge a call didn't work! They couldn't even flag it up to anyone because they'd reveal their call avoiding!).

I despise people who manipulate their place in the queue!
Then I manipulated their place in the queue "for a laugh".

You complete hypocrite.

JReacher1

marliepanda wrote: »

I guess I dont see how a foregone conclusion is fair.

Yes I realise you are struggling

marliepanda

JReacher1 wrote: »

Yes I realise you are struggling

What are you even on about? Can't even have a discussion without resorting to a jibe which makes no sense.

Maybe I should just make a bunch of assumptions based on 'pretend knowledge' like you?

OP a guy at my work got a massive payout in the EXACT circumstances you describe. Take them to the cleaners!

JReacher1

marliepanda wrote: »

What are you even on about? Can't even have a discussion without resorting to a jibe which makes no sense.

Maybe I should just make a bunch of assumptions based on 'pretend knowledge' like you?

OP a guy at my work got a massive payout in the EXACT circumstances you describe. Take them to the cleaners!

Well I do not know what more you want from me? I have referenced an occasion where I know two people received different punishments for the same offence and in tribunal it was found to be unlawful.

You now seem to be accusing me of making it up and posting lots of irrelevant posts about what you think is fair (which is basically irrelevant).

You seem to be deliberately trying to start an argument with me about a situation you know nothing about. It is very strange behaviour!

marliepanda

JReacher1 wrote: »

Well I do not know what more you want from me? I have referenced an occasion where I know two people received different punishments for the same offence and in tribunal it was found to be unlawful.

You now seem to be accusing me of making it up and posting lots of irrelevant posts about what you think is fair (which is basically irrelevant).

You seem to be deliberately trying to start an argument with me about a situation you know nothing about. It is very strange behaviour!

There was nothing argumentative about the past few posts between us. You chose to act as if I was struggling with the discussion to try and make yourself feel as if you had 'won' the discussion.

I stand by my assertion that it is highly unlikely any two cases would be the same and require the exact same outcome.

JReacher1

marliepanda wrote: »

There was nothing argumentative about the past few posts between us. You chose to act as if I was struggling with the discussion to try and make yourself feel as if you had 'won' the discussion.

I stand by my assertion that it is highly unlikely any two cases would be the same and require the exact same outcome.

The first reply you posted to one of my posts was dismissive and unpleasant....

Your assertion is incorrect and to believe it is “highly unlikely” for their to be two cases the same is laughable.