Unfair Dismissal Tribunal

EKEA wrote: »

Here is the short of the story: It's quite a long short story! I don't like short stories, however. They tend to miss out facts. What is the rest of the story?

I got the sack for gross misconduct.

It involves a sum of money that it is alleged I stole.

There was no cctv or witnesses so the case had to go on probability.There was a witness - someone saw the CCTV. So how was there no witness?

The company decided there was enough evidence to go through and dismiss me.That's their prerogative. They have to defend that position if it goes to tribunal, but they are allowed to do this.

The company did not provide documents I requested at the hearing. No idea what this means

They also invited me to call witnesses for my defence but then they decided the witnesses "were not relevant". And that may be the case. Why did they say they were not relevant? What were the witnesses going to say?

There was one statement from a manager who supposedly saw the cctv and said they saw me take money but the cctv was then overwritten by more coverage of the following day.Why would they lie about this?

I am not in a union.Bad decision that was, wasn't it?

During the investigation, the investigatory officer is heard (on a covert recording made unbeknown to me by my colleague of course you didn't know.) saying "i wanted them to crack". So what? And I hope your colleague has their belongings conveniently parcelled up for when they are escorted from the premises and dismissed themselves.

During the hearing, the hearing officer said they could not include anything to do with cctv as there was none. The meeting focused on other points and no further conversation about the statement of cctv happened.What other points?

I have been through their appeals procedure. Uh huh. And?

During the appeal, the appeals officer said the statement of the cctv viewing would be included. This was surprising and I now believe I have been mis-led, or they're trying it on as they know they don't have anything else to go on; in addition, perhaps they feel like they're too far down the road to turn back.I don't deal with guesses.

I have telephoned ACAS who have started their part of this process. Although the gentleman who I spoke to was very accusing and sounded like this case was wasting his time and a judge would see it the same way. Well most ACAS front line call centre staff wouldn't know the time of day with a watch. This means nothing. Besides which - it's another of your guesses. Guessing is not stock for trading.

Is it correct I have 3 months from when ACAS get involved for a tribunal? No. You have three months less a day from the date of the dismissal, but formal ACAS involvement stops that clock.

The ACAS man asked what I wanted, meaning financial compensation. I have no idea what value to put on all this. It's caused a lot of problems with my wife. I am absolutely certain that there is no compensation for trouble with your wife.

I am in a job now, but it pays around £9,000 less a year. (I now get below £20,000 pa). I'm not sure how long it would take me to get a job that would pay near equal.

I have read on one website I could be looking at £8,000 or something similar as this is the value of money from the time I was out of work to being back in work. That's really simplistic. But since you have actually told us almost nothing, we can't make a good guess.

I have read on another website that the company could have to make up my pay to the value it was until I find a job that would be near equal pay to my earnings before. Maybe. See last comment.

The company will likely try to settle out of court, but unlikely through ACAS. Why would you think that?

I don't have loads of money so looking at no win-no-fee lawyers as the only "free consultation" lawyer near me will accept people from certain postcodes only - mine isn't in that bracket.

Advice would be greatly appreciated.

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

In your post you never actually said you didn't take the money...

EKEA wrote: »

I have worked there for 10 years.

Sad to see some are already jumping to the conclusion I took the money. I didn't take the money. It's a shame that you think that because there was no jumping to conclusions. There were certainly questions because (a) it was relevant and (b) people normally scream it from the rooftops when they are innocent of something. But you are assuming that we were jumping to conclusions, or, in fact, that if we thought you were guilty that would have made a difference to the advice. It wouldn't, because we weren't. We didn't know. Shame you didn't tell us whilst you were jumping to conclusions???

I meant there was no witnesses to the act because it didn't happen. However because the money is missing from the till, it has been assumed I must have stolen it. And that may be "ok" - employment law does not require them to have such evidence. They only have to have a reasonable belief - which is what you have already been told. As I said to you, it is up to them to justify that to a tribunal. But the fact they have no evidence as such does not help your case either, because that criminal standard of evidence isn't used.

At the disciplinary hearing, I would have asked the witnesses some questions leading to whether they think I would have stole the money or not so more character based i suppose. That wouldn't be evidence. Character witnesses are not relevant. And neither does it mean that someone of good character doesn't steal - it happens.

The manager lied because they are also involved with the union and i'd go as far as saying they hate anyone not being involved with the union. So it seems to be a bit of payback for me not joining. Strange how this came to light right at the end of the process instead of during the investigatory part. I was under the impression from your first comments that you didn't like people making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Which is all you are doing here. Why on earth would a manager fit you up for a theft simply because you didn't join the union. That is an outrageous claim without any evidence at all. Pretty much like you are claiming he is making about your being involved in the theft, isn't it?

The reason I am being sketchy is in case someone I know is able to join the dots and guess it's me. I'd rather be a little more covert than to blurt the whole details here. At this stage I can't see how being identified would make any difference, on the off chance that someone might be reading it. There's enough detail already to identify you if someone really wanted to. The truth is, nothing that could be said here would be of any help to them unless you admitted stealing the money.

I am just looking for advice on what compensation I should be looking at - irrespective of the whole back story. You aren't listening - there isn't an "irrespective of". The back story is part of the way in which they will consider any possible compensation. If you can't provide details, then nobody can help you.

Thank you undervalued. Their process seems okay from their end but it's difficult to prove innocence when they are automatically thinking you are guilty from the off.