Suspended from work

Undervalued

jimbo2010 said:

Undervalued said:

jimbo2010 said:

Hi, yes sorry. So the allegations were the following - 

· Leaving lab lines unattended - No evidence of this, no times, dates nothing

· Sleeping on shift - I was making jokes to a colleague as we work nights and said I had been asleep on my break

· Sending of inappropriate messages using company messaging service - I said in one teams message "why does she always moan"

· Inappropriate conduct towards staff members - I apparently raised my voice to someone, there was no evidence or dates or times or who the person I allegedly raised my voice to was

Following the investigation, I was told it was closed and no further action to be taken. However, I work for an employment agency and the client has told them they want to end my assignment.

Three out of four of these points come over as if you are "guilty as charged" but you feel you can get away with if because you feel there is a lack of evidence!

If that is not the case then you need to be more careful how you phrase things!

If it is (even partly) the case then you need to remember that an employer does not need proof, only a "reasonable belief" that the misconduct took place. That is a far lower bar for them to get over.

If they have a reasonable belief then they can dismiss you providing dismissal is within the range of sanctions a reasonable employer might choose. The dismissal will still be fair (in law) even if their reasonable belief turns out to be wrong.

That is not the case at all, the four points are made-up allegations. There isn't a lack of evidence, there is no evidence at all. When I asked for the evidence, I was told there was none, just the word of somebody who didn't want to be known. I am not guilty of any wrongdoing, and I will phrase it how I like. I was suspended for three weeks while this investigation took place and my name has been sullied with rumours of racism and threats of violence and to top it off I have lost my job for no reason.

Even if you are "morally justified" in doing so, it is seldom a good idea!

kimwp

lincroft1710 said:

Jillanddy said:

lincroft1710 said:

mcpitman said:

Jillanddy said:

mcpitman said:

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

In my past I have seen unions involved in debates to a ridiculous level about silly things like the brand of coffee used in the office and the air fresheners used. I have been involved in many disciplinaries over the years and never once, ever, at all, in any way has "I'm going to the union" made a difference or influence to the outcome of the investigations and terminations of employment.

Unions have always seemed to be abrasive and non value adding in any involvement I have had and the businesses that did recognise unions merely tolerated them at best.

But then again, my main career has been in making private sector businesses and local governments work more efficiently, make more profit and grow for re-sale/re-finance so I suppose I am the Unions anti-christ in many ways. 

Well, given that if my employer had had their way I would be unemployed right now, and as a disabled older person the chances of me ever working again (even with great skills and qualifications) would be very low. And my team would no longer exist, with several losing their jobs and the rest dispersed across services. So it certainly made a difference to us, and not remotely old hat at all. If you think that better protection for employees is embedded in employment law then you have little understanding of employment law. 

 And just to point out that losing my team would have cost the employer MORE in redundancy than it saved, and my team GENERATES massive amounts of income - I am talking £millions - and generates huge new service activity which benefits local people in the poorest neighbourhoods. Someone called that idea "efficiency" too, so I am not impressed by claims that you think efficiency means that there is more "profit" or growth. That suggests that you are as narrow minded in your approach as you claim some unions are.

And yes, we did once have lengthy discussions with an employer about coffee - which resulted in the development of a policy that supported sustainable development and fair trade. What you view as silly discussions can have life changing impacts for many people. Not everything in life should be about making money - whether that is employees or employers. Sometimes, it should be about doing the right thing.

Now I must get off because I am off to have a "silly" discussion about how we support Ukrainian refugees - not a profit in sight.

Please re-write the above removing the personal attacks. You appear to descend into extreme examples and insulting language when someone puta a point of view across that differs to yours.

Your final sentence, is so unbelievably ignorant to my personal home situation currently (and general view of the world) I cannot possibly interact with you any longer on this subject. Absolutely abhorrent statement to make.

Slava Ukraini.

I think you will find that Jill's final sentence was tongue-in-cheek!

No.  It was literally and factually true.  If mcpitman was offended I said nothing  offensive. Just as he didn't offend by the insulting language around union and union membership. I appreciate others have different opinions but if they want to express them they need to expect alternative opinions. The comments about unions were extremely offensive to me - but I don't whinge or report.  I respond. So yes,  I actually DID spend all afternoon working on resettlement of refugees. It isn't efficient.  It makes no money.  Its the right thing to do. 

It was obvious to myself and one would have hoped the vast majority of people that you were willingly working on the resettlement of Ukrainian refugees. But apparently not everyone realised that. 

  Agreed.!

Dakta

sounds to me from the additional information now provided r.e. your direct employer being an agency that its just a case of the client company rining up 'weve had x problems with this resource please dont send again can we have someone else'

I don't think at this point the validity of the accusations even come into it as I would believe a company using an agency for labour resource would be entitled to request someone on their books not to be assigned to them in future regardless of reason

in this case what the opening post describes as 'work' is more of a client, and your work is your agency, which I presume you're still with 

I'd just move on at this stage unless there's something i've missed - gossip at work is great at backfiring and teams is a breeding ground for quotes out of context. Whilst its hard to do (I try to get on with my peers) it's always worth keeping even the best colleagues at swordslength