fair disciplinary process

gomer

polgara wrote: »

Can I suggest that you really need to improve your written English as your posts are extremely difficult to understand.

I think that's a side issue. It's clear enough to make out what the rough issue is. I don't think we need get hung up on people's written English. It obviously isn't his first language.

ReadingTim

gomer wrote: »

I think that's a side issue. It's clear enough to make out what the rough issue is. I don't think we need get hung up on people's written English. It obviously isn't his first language.

It's both a side issue and the key issue. If we can only estimate what the rough issue is, we can only give rough and estimated advice in return. Or to put it another way, garbage in = garbage out!

However, if the OP wants clear, specific and accurate answers, then they need to write clear, specific, and accurate questions in clear, specific, and accurate English. If they're unable to do this, then it's in their own best interests to seek advice from someone who speaks the language they can best articulate themselves in.

The legal profession and lawyers exist to give precise meaning to words, phrases etc, as interpretations vary - it's simply not possible to get by on the basis of roughly working out what's going on.

Given this could well be the OP's employment, and thus their livelihood at stake, I don't think trying to work out "what the rough issue is" cuts it - do you?

gomer

ReadingTim wrote: »

It's both a side issue and the key issue. If we can only estimate what the rough issue is, we can only give rough and estimated advice in return. Or to put it another way, garbage in = garbage out!

However, if the OP wants clear, specific and accurate answers, then they need to write clear, specific, and accurate questions in clear, specific, and accurate English. If they're unable to do this, then it's in their own best interests to seek advice from someone who speaks the language they can best articulate themselves in.

The legal profession and lawyers exist to give precise meaning to words, phrases etc, as interpretations vary - it's simply not possible to get by on the basis of roughly working out what's going on.

Given this could well be the OP's employment, and thus their livelihood at stake, I don't think trying to work out "what the rough issue is" cuts it - do you?

Neither does being pompous.

gomer

I'm minded of the graffiti that recently popped up in a certain East London Borough "SPEAK ENGLISH! “

TELLIT01

ReadingTim wrote: »

It's both a side issue and the key issue. If we can only estimate what the rough issue is, we can only give rough and estimated advice in return. Or to put it another way, garbage in = garbage out!

However, if the OP wants clear, specific and accurate answers, then they need to write clear, specific, and accurate questions in clear, specific, and accurate English. If they're unable to do this, then it's in their own best interests to seek advice from someone who speaks the language they can best articulate themselves in.

The legal profession and lawyers exist to give precise meaning to words, phrases etc, as interpretations vary - it's simply not possible to get by on the basis of roughly working out what's going on.

Given this could well be the OP's employment, and thus their livelihood at stake, I don't think trying to work out "what the rough issue is" cuts it - do you?

Nobody here is giving legal advice so a reasonable understanding of what the OP is asking will be sufficient to give a reasonable answer to the question. The OP's grasp of English is a darn sight better then the grasp of foreign languages held by many British ex-pats. The post is also a heck of a lot easier to comprehend than many Brits who have posted on the site without using and form of punctuation or capital letters.

ReadingTim

gomer wrote: »

I think your pomposity easily trumped my virtue signalling sweetie xx

Intimidated by the big words and difficult concepts articulated therein I imagine.

gomer

ReadingTim wrote: »

Intimidated by the big words and difficult concepts articulated therein I imagine.

Hardly. But I do like your optimism timmy x

holow666

ohreally wrote: »

An investigation has led to a disciplinary hearing being convened, you disagreed with the outcome and appealed, the appeal fell so you went to grievance which fell. Is this correct.

Yes, but i only appealed on investigation outcome, because they aloud me to appeal it, and after they ignored it and made a false statement at the disciplinary investigation that i appealed to pay me companies sick pay, not to reinvestigate the decision.
I did not care about the sick pay, I cared about wrong outcome, because i felt sick and i did not come, by following they sickness procedures. I also been informed that i won't be paid companies sick pay, unless they will decide otherwise, so I even did not expected to be payed and i did not ask for it because it is they discretion.

jobbingmusician

Have you not got an English friend who can proof read your communications to your employer? I don't think for a moment that they 'made a false statement to the disciplinary investigation that [you] appealed to [be paid] sick pay'. I think it is 99.99% likely that they believed that this is what happened. I think your English, the way you express yourself and the way confuse different points you are making, led them to believe sincerely that being paid sick pay was a serious motivator. I would put money on the fact that you referred to this (I mean the fact they were not paying you full sick pay) several times during the hearing......

holow666

jobbingmusician wrote: »

Have you not got an English friend who can proof read your communications to your employer? I don't think for a moment that they 'made a false statement to the disciplinary investigation that [you] appealed to [be paid] sick pay'. I think it is 99.99% likely that they believed that this is what happened. I think your English, the way you express yourself and the way confuse different points you are making, led them to believe sincerely that being paid sick pay was a serious motivator. I would put money on the fact that you referred to this (I mean the fact they were not paying you full sick pay) several times during the hearing......

at first day of my absence i been informed companies sick pay was stopped, so i knew it won't be paid, when i came back, they paid me companies sick pay, and later made investigation. They told me that they wont pay me company sick pay for this absence ( but they already did)
So i did not need to appeal to pay me, I appealed because i disagreed with their allegation.
This is they discretion, its not my privilege, so if they believe i should not be paid, why they paid me?