IM OFF

[kevo35]

Did everything they asked of me, attended meetings etc informed of all medical investigations and results, they have been informed 100% ofthe way. I was only on rehab for the first day of the first week. I haven't been dismissed, just suspended. I wasnt even going out on delivery.

[raikky]

first.. who saw you? was it a postie? find the grass and kick the s**t out of that brown nose arsehole.

trainee managers can be fun, they always screw up. espeically the ones on a powerrush. for example you said you had no representation? wasnt offered it? make a note fo all these things as there are proceedures that managers must follow.

[kevo35]

first.. who saw you? was it a postie? find the grass and kick the s**t out of that brown nose arsehole.

trainee managers can be fun, they always screw up. espeically the ones on a powerrush. for example you said you had no representation? wasnt offered it? make a note fo all these things as there are proceedures that managers must follow.

1)Cant wait to find out who it was, have a good idea and yes he is a brown noser. So he will be dwalt with.

2) It was a senior manager who suspended me, and that t#$t should know better.

[IloveMYredTROLLEY!]

first.. who saw you? was it a postie? find the grass and kick the s**t out of that brown nose arsehole.

trainee managers can be fun, they always screw up. espeically the ones on a powerrush. for example you said you had no representation? wasnt offered it? make a note fo all these things as there are proceedures that managers must follow.

1)Cant wait to find out who it was, have a good idea and yes he is a brown noseer. So he will be dwalt with.

2) It was a senior manager who suspended me, and that t#$t should know better.

Don't do anything foolish that would jeopardise an ET case.

[kevo35]

I wont and tbh they can poke the lot of it including Ms Greene and all the muppets right up their own gearboxes.

[clashcityrocker]

first.. who saw you? was it a postie? find the grass and kick the s**t out of that brown nose arsehole.

Really dumb advice, especially on a public forum.

[raikky]

first.. who saw you? was it a postie? find the grass and kick the s**t out of that brown nose arsehole.

Really dumb advice, especially on a public forum.

and youd have to be dumb to think that was serious advice. sorry for got the (j/K).

[kevo35]

I WON'T' be using any violence just a few strong words in his shell. I don't want to be had up for gbh and stuff.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I WON'T' be using any violence just a few strong words in his shell. I don't want to be had up for gbh and stuff.

Don't do it while your suspended, or even after if you're still with RM it will make life very difficult for you.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Sorry trolley mate, but they don't need "Evidence". All they need is a reasonable suspicion to suspend. Then if they do dismiss they only have to prove that it was a reasonable action in the circumstances as they were known to the dismissing manager at the time.

But if it that easy TBT, why haven't RM been P45ing every OPG not complying with lino/DOM wishes (regardless of whether the instructions comply with official protocol) on the first instance of them going sick?

http://etclaims.co.uk/2013/01/dont-rely ... -of-proof/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don’t confuse the burden of proof with the standard of proof, which is about to what level of certainty something must be proved. For example, in criminal cases the standard is ‘satisfied so that you are sure’, also expressed as ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. In almost all civil litigation, including in the employment tribunal, the standard is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, that something is more likely than not to be true.

http://www.allanmcdougall.co.uk/employm ... missal.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“The determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer): -

depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and
shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.”

[Sidley]

Delete this thread ffs. Before some management lickspittle screen caps it and works out who has just been suspended.

[Rory]

So were you working elsewhere?

[Postie45]

TBT the articles do state there has to be some evidence though, or am I reading it incorrectly ?

" But the employer does have to prove that he had a potentially fair reason for dismissal; there he has the burden of proof."

"In unfair dismissal cases the onus of proof is on the employer to show the reason or, if more than one reason, the principal reason for dismissing the employee"

"If the employer proves that the reason for the dismissal was one of those referred to above, then it may be either “fair” or “unfair”"

so the employer has to give some supporting evidence, some proof to why they came to this conclusion, a "hunch" wouldnt cut it.

"In almost all civil litigation, including in the employment tribunal, the standard is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, that something is more likely than not to be true."

with no supporting evidence there is only one sides word against the other.

Any reason why they let him work 2.5 hours before they had this talk with the OP ? If they only found out the same morning from whoever grassed him up / made up the story, then they dont seem to have much solid evidence at this point but followed procedure in suspending.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

You are right there has to be some evidence to support the decision if he is dismissed, but it doesn't have to be at the same level as a criminal court. In other words, the suggestion that they need photographic evidence to show he was working when he was off sick is incorrect. All they need is a reasonable amount of suspicion.

Again you are right a hunch wouldn't be enough for dismissal on the balance of probabilities. But statements from people who say they have seen him working, where and when, as long as the business considered them reliable witnesses. Then they will probably have reached the threshold of "more likely than not to be true". Especially if the employee has not had union advice whilst its going on, and/or in the various interviews with them.

That's the reason why they don't use this process to instigate a mass dismissal as the process would more than likely bankrupt them. I can't see any ET supporting a mass dismissal based on the above, as it wouldn't fall under the reasonable action clause.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The 2.5 hours working before suspension could be seen as reasonable by an ET, as the managers have other responsibilities. But also they may need to check the paperwork and get advice from HR or more senior management before they proceed with the suspension in case anything has changed.