Worktime learning sessions and signing on sheets..

[postypie]

when we are asked to sign these sheets during these sessions..are we signing them to say that we have turned up on the date shown ..or are they to prove that a particular subject or subjects relating to our business was covered on that particular day so no employee there can plead ignorance in the future should an occurrence relating to anything discussed at these sessions ever come up in their working environment?
The reason i ask is today i was told that a colleague who was sacked recently in another office, was apparently/allegedly shown the door based on what was discussed at a particular work time learning session he/she allegedly attended a few months earlier and the fact he/she failed to do what was shown to he/she at one of these sessions at the time and of course he/she had signed to say they had attended.. this postie allegedly did something that was covered in one of these sessions which a manager traced back and promptly sacked he/she for it!
Now i have heard some of his colleagues are refusing to sign any of these work time learning sheets in the future(even though they will attend them) now they have seen/heard about the plight of their workmate..and if true..who can blame them?

[obscurityknocks]

Not knowing the circumstances, but i would guess being aware of it via wtll is not enough to get you dismissed. Be very worried if they are using "well you signed during wtll that you agreed to it" as substantial enough evidence to get dismissed for....but there again this is RM. Obviously such things as signing the security of mail stuff etc is a bit different. Would hope a decent rep with all the facts could put up a pretty good case for the person.

[meercat]

I would imagine they could sack you for refusing to sign for wtl session too.

By law you are required to follow all reasonable requests that are inline with your work contract/job description or face legitamate dismissal. Attending and signing for wtl is very reasonable. The fact this guy was sacked wasn't solely due to signing for wtl, that was just more evidence to show he should have been aware of this thing he did. Without the wtl signature he could still have been sacked and that sacking could have been upheld in a tribunal if RM could show he would have been aware of this thing he shouldn't have done. Not difficult to prove if they have 2 managers saying everyboby was informed on such and such a date. ANyway al you have to so to avoid thhis is don't do whatever RM tell you not to do - so long as it's reasonable. They are paying your wages after all.

[POSTMAN]

That is a serious manager there for digging that up.
Due to that I wouldn't sign for anything like that ever again.

BUT,what was the person sacked for,had to be serious.

[fishtank]

Due to that I wouldn't sign for anything like that ever again.

Not signing it/signing it makes no difference.
If a manager wanted to sack you and use this WTLL as part of the reason he would only need to make a reasonable assumption that you were there.
Attendance records would do that.....he doesn't need proof and your signature isn't proof anyway in the same way that you not signing it or signing it Donald Duck doesn't prove you weren't there

[POSTMAN]

Due to that I wouldn't sign for anything like that ever again.

Not signing it/signing it makes no difference.
If a manager wanted to sack you and use this WTLL as part of the reason he would only need to make a reasonable assumption that you were there.
Attendance records would do that.....he doesn't need proof and your signature isn't proof anyway in the same way that you not signing it or signing it Donald Duck doesn't prove you weren't there

To be fair,yep.