We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Suspension from work

123457»

Comments

  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    ...

    The law I was referring to was of course the law of tort

    Yes I know. But you are still wrong. There was no trespass.
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    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.

    Quite possibly. But then if an employer believed there was a trespass they would have said so. In this case there has been no mention.

    In any case it's utterly irrelevant. If an employee did indeed enter a premises for non work related purposes, and the employer was unhappy about it, they'd go through the disciplinary process and dismiss them for breach of contract. Why would they sue them for trespass? What would be the point?
  • billy2shots
    billy2shots Posts: 1,125 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    antrobus wrote: »
    Quite possibly. But then if an employer believed there was a trespass they would have said so. In this case there has been no mention.

    In any case it's utterly irrelevant. If an employee did indeed enter a premises for non work related purposes, and the employer was unhappy about it, they'd go through the disciplinary process and dismiss them for breach of contract. Why would they sue them for trespass? What would be the point?

    Nobody is suing anybody!
    Nobody said the op should be sued!
    Nobody said legal action or civil action should be taken!

    I said that I think the disciplinary process underway was correct and just because it could have been worse. Certain laws, rules, procedures could have been broken (we still haven't got the full details). I did not elude to H&S, Tort etc etc. I was then pushed to give an example from one angry member in particular and I said trespass. People are then putting words in my mouth and saying trespass is no a legal mater but a civil one. I never said it was a legal one:mad:

    Still this very day , members are still disagreeing with whether entering a premises out of hours without seeking permission is trespass yet i the one who can't post anywhere on MSE without being called a troll and harassed.

    Is this same behaviour directed at other members who believe the OP may have trespassed? I doubt it.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.