Suspension from work

billy2shots

Entering someone else's property without permission is a pretty obvious law breach. Regardless of it being an hour early or a business or residential property. The OP did not have permission to be there. It's pretty straight forward.

If you worked in Greggs, would it be fair to open the shop early to set tables up and your mate make himself/herself a sausage roll.

MSE is predominantly for the little guy (employee/ customer) against the big bad guys (employers/ big companies) that doesn't mean every thread needs to side with the OPs and play down wrongdoing.

In no way am I scaring the OP, I'm just saying that she hasn't been treated unfairly as things COULD have been worse.

I can only presume that those with an issue use other people's business premises without consent???

Helen1993

I didn't open up the premises for her to get her nails done. I was opening up early regardless as I needed to set up for the charity event. If as you say I have broken the law then would that not contradict with what you have said and that i SHOULD be seeking legal advice?

I don't understand what law I could have broken?

I have held my hands up and advised that I now know I am in the wrong etc. Had I of known that there would of been such serious breach of rules I would never have allowed this to take place. As previously stated, I wasn't thinking of the bigger picture at the time.

antrobus

billy2shots wrote: »

Entering someone else's property without permission is a pretty obvious law breach

Regardless of it being an hour early or a business or residential property. The OP did not have permission to be there. It's pretty straight forward.

If you worked in Greggs, would it be fair to open the shop early to set tables up and your mate make himself/herself a sausage roll.

MSE is predominantly for the little guy (employee/ customer) against the big bad guys (employers/ big companies) that doesn't mean every thread needs to side with the OPs and play down wrongdoing.

In no way am I scaring the OP, I'm just saying that she hasn't been treated unfairly as things COULD have been worse.

I can only presume that those with an issue use other people's business premises without consent???

Utter rubbish.

You have no understanding of the law, and have failed to read the OP's account of events.

antrobus

Helen1993 wrote: »

I didn't open up the premises for her to get her nails done. I was opening up early regardless as I needed to set up for the charity event. If as you say I have broken the law then would that not contradict with what you have said and that i SHOULD be seeking legal advice?

I don't understand what law I could have broken?

I have held my hands up and advised that I now know I am in the wrong etc. Had I of known that there would of been such serious breach of rules I would never have allowed this to take place. As previously stated, I wasn't thinking of the bigger picture at the time.

Take no notice of billy2shots. They know nothing.

You have broken no laws. You were not trespassing.

billy2shots

Helen1993 wrote: »

I didn't open up the premises for her to get her nails done. I was opening up early regardless as I needed to set up for the charity event. If as you say I have broken the law then would that not contradict with what you have said and that i SHOULD be seeking legal advice?


No contradiction, you haven't said your employer is taking legal action so no advice is required regarding that.

I don't understand what law I could have broken?

Trespassing can apply to places where someone is employed. "the act of knowingly entering another person's property without permission."

Without jumping to other conclusions there could be laws enforced by your local council regarding operating hours. Setting up chairs would have been ok. Doing someone's nails would have been seen as operating.

I have held my hands up and advised that I now know I am in the wrong etc. Had I of known that there would of been such serious breach of rules I would never have allowed this to take place. As previously stated, I wasn't thinking of the bigger picture at the time.

Unfortunately in law ignorance is not at defence.

Just to be clear to you and others, I'm playing devils advocate and think you have been treated as you should have been. For that reason I question the need to seek further guidance. There are plenty of people who have been unfairly and need the services recommended here.

sangie595

billy2shots wrote: »

Unfortunately in law ignorance is not at defence.

Just to be clear to you and others, I'm playing devils advocate and think you have been treated as you should have been. For that reason I question the need to seek further guidance. There are plenty of people who have been unfairly and need the services recommended here.

Your are entirely correct. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. So what is your excuse for this ridiculous advice??? This is not Bening a "devil's advocate" - your interpretstion of the law is entirely wrong!

OP - ignore everything this party is telling you. You have not broken any law. You were authorised to enter the premises and held the keys, so no trespass occurred. And even if there were a bye-law (that's a,"law" set by the Council), (a) they aren't laws and so breaking them is a civil offence not a criminal offence, and (b) you didn't break any such law!

TELLIT01

There is just one element I'm unclear on. Your colleague, who presumably was there to help set-up and therefore had permission to be there, was doing your sister's nails. Was she using any company product for this or did she provide everything herself?

If the 'only' issue is with your sister being there, and that is serious enough because of insurance, health and safety etc, it's not clear where misuse of company equipment comes into it.

billy2shots

The whole point of this thread is the OP Did not have permission to be on the premises That is why she has been suspended. Having the keys and being the employee does not override that fact.

The premises were entered when they shouldn't have been and it could not be any simpler than that. Throwing the word 'charity' into the mix does not change anything hence the suspension.

If the shop (beauty salon?) needed to be opened earlier for prep then I'm sure the owner/ manager would have made provision and given permission for this to be done. It sounds like it wasn't needed so no permission was asked for or granted. In short, the employee has no legal right to be there.

It's not clear why the OP's sister was there, does she also work there? If not then it looks highly suspicious that she just happened to be there and get her nails done whilst the lady that does nails also happened to turn up early and be there. I am suspicious by nature and shouldn't jump to conclusions but you can see how it looks. Happy to apologise if your sister is employed and was supposed to be there.

I'm guessing (wrong I know) that the businesses work station was used, electric lights etc for personal gain yet people seem to think this is lawful??? The mind boggles.

We then come to Health and Safety Law. The business proprietor will need to be covered by public liability insurance which would be well and truly skewed if an accident happened whilst the premises should have been locked up.

A property developer (friend of a friend) recently went to jail because an employee entered a worksite and committed suicide. The site was closed for the night and the employee had no business being there. The developer, as a director went to jail for cooperate manslaughter.

A bit extreme but you get my point, us employers have responsibilities to keep people safe even when we are not working. People letting themselves into business premises when they decide makes a mockery of H&S law.

I'm struggling to understand why having a key and being an employee qualifies someone to come and go as they please.

Sorry for derailing your thread, I mentioned law but that wasn't the jist of my reply as I've explained. I truly believe you have been treated fairly by being suspended.

sangie595

TELLIT01 wrote: »

There is just one element I'm unclear on. Your colleague, who presumably was there to help set-up and therefore had permission to be there, was doing your sister's nails. Was she using any company product for this or did she provide everything herself?

If the 'only' issue is with your sister being there, and that is serious enough because of insurance, health and safety etc, it's not clear where misuse of company equipment comes into it.

That was the point that I questioned previously. The colleague didn't charge the sister, whether they used the product of the employer or not (i assume they did) so technically that would be the misuse. But if the OP didn't do it, and didn't ask her to, then she didn't misuse anything, the other person did. As far as the OP is concerned, she stupidly leery her sister on the premises when she shouldn't - what her sister and the colleague then did is really on the colleague.

sangie595

billy2shots wrote: »

The whole point of this thread is the OP Did not have permission to be on the premises That is why she has been suspended. Having the keys and being the employee does not override that fact.

The premises were entered when they shouldn't have been and it could not be any simpler than that. Throwing the word 'charity' into the mix does not change anything hence the suspension.

If the shop (beauty salon?) needed to be opened earlier for prep then I'm sure the owner/ manager would have made provision and given permission for this to be done. It sounds like it wasn't needed so no permission was asked for or granted. In short, the employee has no legal right to be there.

It's not clear why the OP's sister was there, does she also work there? If not then it looks highly suspicious that she just happened to be there and get her nails done whilst the lady that does nails also happened to turn up early and be there. I am suspicious by nature and shouldn't jump to conclusions but you can see how it looks. Happy to apologise if your sister is employed and was supposed to be there.

I'm guessing (wrong I know) that the businesses work station was used, electric lights etc for personal gain yet people seem to think this is lawful??? The mind boggles.

We then come to Health and Safety Law. The business proprietor will need to be covered by public liability insurance which would be well and truly skewed if an accident happened whilst the premises should have been locked up.

A property developer (friend of a friend) recently went to jail because an employee entered a worksite and committed suicide. The site was closed for the night and the employee had no business being there. The developer, as a director went to jail for cooperate manslaughter.

A bit extreme but you get my point, us employers have responsibilities to keep people safe even when we are not working. People letting themselves into business premises when they decide makes a mockery of H&S law.

I'm struggling to understand why having a key and being an employee qualifies someone to come and go as they please.

Sorry for derailing your thread, I mentioned law but that wasn't the jist of my reply as I've explained. I truly believe you have been treated fairly by being suspended.

I am answering the first line because I can't be bothered wasting my time on you reading the rest. The OP had permission to be on the premises, and opened the premises with the keys the employer gives her for the purpose. You are making stuff up. Stop it. Just stop it. I have keys to my office. So do all the other senior staff. We go there when we want. That is not breaking the law. Breaking in is breaking the law!