Suspension from work

nicechap

Helen1993 wrote: »

Sorry for the late reply.

I am the assistant manager, my manager was off on holiday. Regardless of wether my sister was gettin her nails done or not I would have been opening up to set up for the charity day. I wasn't trespassing.

My colleague didn't use any equipment of the company's she brought her own (we do not work in a beauty salon)

This isn't the first time that I or my other colleagues have opened up our shop early for different scenarios.

I have been job hunting since I've been off.

I'm not a snowflake either, and I'm on here as a new poster for advice, so any advise is welcome.

I understand now after looking at the bigger picture, I have held my hands up and said I wasn't thinking of the consequences at the time and I wasn't in any way shape or form trying to deceit my manager or the company. We have cameras all over the shop which, after managers absence they apparently have to check over. So if I thought, at the time I was doing something wrong I most certainly wouldn't allow it to happen.

I feel that I'm not getting help from work in this case. They have advised not to contact anyone or go near the shop, I have to be available to speak to/able to be available ro go to a meeting within my working hours every day that I'm off on suspension.

Thanks again for all advise and sorry for the late replies.

Sorry, I may have missed it in amongst the other information.

Did your bosses know about & authorise the charity day and everything that it entailed? Was there a H&S risk register done for any planned activity outside of normal business operations? E.g. cakes with nuts clearly marked in case of allergies. Was your sisterthere as part of preparations for the charity day? Was your colleague doing nails rather than her normal duties as part of the charity day? I've never had my nails done but I believe chemicals are involved - was there any risk to members of the public or shop's products as a result?

Masomnia

Comms69 wrote: »

This could easily be a reason to get rid of the OP. But depending on employer/employee relations I agree a warning and training would probably more useful

If you mean it isn't a criminal offence, then no one said it was.

'Suspension is a neutral act' is something HR people say, but in practice the courts often don't see it that way. I wonder if they were sat down by their boss one day and told they were suspended they'd say 'Oh well it's a neutral act, no problem I'l just go home and put my feet up and watch The Chase until they want me back in.' I daresay not.

Comms69

Masomnia wrote: »

If you mean it isn't a criminal offence, then no one said it was.

'Suspension is a neutral act' is something HR people say, but in practice the courts often don't see it that way. I wonder if they were sat down by their boss one day and told they were suspended they'd say 'Oh well it's a neutral act, no problem I'l just go home and put my feet up and watch The Chase until they want me back in.' I daresay not.

There were several claims it was ‘illegal’, so it’s worth clarifying that no offence was committed.

Maybe they wouldn’t say that, but it doesn’t change the fact that courts DO view suspension as a neutral act.

Masomnia

Comms69 wrote: »

There were several claims it was ‘illegal’, so it’s worth clarifying that no offence was committed.

Maybe they wouldn’t say that, but it doesn’t change the fact that courts DO view suspension as a neutral act.

I haven't seen anyone use that word, but that's beside the point.

The idea of suspension is to remove risk from business. So if you don't trust someone with the keys (assuming with good reason) you take the keys off them, there's no need to prevent them working altogether; otherwise it just looks like a punishment.

LilElvis

nicechap wrote: »

Sorry, I may have missed it in amongst the other information.

Did your bosses know about & authorise the charity day and everything that it entailed? Was there a H&S risk register done for any planned activity outside of normal business operations? E.g. cakes with nuts clearly marked in case of allergies. Was your sisterthere as part of preparations for the charity day? Was your colleague doing nails rather than her normal duties as part of the charity day? I've never had my nails done but I believe chemicals are involved - was there any risk to members of the public or shop's products as a result?

"Having your nails done" - even just painting your nails - involves highly flammable materials.

ohreally

Comms69 wrote: »

Maybe they wouldn’t say that, but it doesn’t change the fact that courts DO view suspension as a neutral act.

Lord Justice Sedley disagrees....

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/106.html

There is little neutral about a suspension, paid or otherwise.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I agree.

SIR PETER GIBSON: I also agree.

Masomnia

ohreally wrote: »

Lord Justice Sedley disagrees....

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/106.html

There is little neutral about a suspension, paid or otherwise.

I venture to disagree, at least in relation to the employment of a qualified professional in a function which is as much a vocation as a job. Suspension changes the status quo from work to no work, and it inevitably casts a shadow over the employee's competence.

Is the get out they gave themselves for these cases, as I think they were a bit wary about setting a precedent for all employees everywhere. Still it should be obvious to employers that suspension should only be done when absolutely necessary because understandably people feel punished when it is done, and it will obviously make their colleagues think differently about them.

antrobus

Masomnia wrote: »

Can you explain why (or when) being on someone's property when you don't have permission is not trespass? Everyone seems to have jumped on this.

....

Because;

sangie595 wrote: »

For the final time, the OP had been very clear why she opened the shop. And for a legitimate purpose. Unless, of course, the big charity cake sale was also done without the employers permission and they actually totally missed the fact that it had happened!

And that is the reason why she was not unlawfully on the premises. An event, which she was setting up, which the employer was running for charity. All explained right back on page one before the entire thread became full of silly threats about criminal offences for a keyholder with authority to be in the premises turning up to work early to get ready!

As in OP was an authorised keyholder, ergo had permission, ergo no trespass.

Undervalued

antrobus wrote: »

Because;



As in OP was an authorised keyholder, ergo had permission, ergo no trespass.

That doesn't actually follow.

As a keyholder of a business the employee has permission to enter the premises at certain times and for certain purposes. The do not necessarily have permission to come and go at other times, particularly for non work related purposes. So under some circumstances it could indeed be trespass.

nicechap

Comms69 wrote: »

It's Comms69 - 2 m's.


Like I said already English is not my first language either, so I don't think that comment applies to me, but in any case.


On behalf of myself (though im confident Nicechap and Sangie both knew this also) I am aware of Tort Law, which is not 'breaking the law' as such. But since you have mentioned multiple times that you're struggling with some terminology I'll just put it down to crossed wires


It allows for civil redress when someone in essence causes damage or loss. It applies to many cases, not just trespass.

As a son of an immigrant to Britain with childhood dyslexia and dyscalculia I've had my fair share of wires crossed. I had to work very hard to get to the standard of English I currently have. I don't cast other posters as bullies because I posted something wrong - recently I was very pleased when Sangie corrected me concerning maternity discrimination. Her correction helped both the OP and me.