Investigation whilst signed off sick

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

I totally disagree on that. Actually sites like this (or jobs like mine) can warp your perspective. The vast majority of employers are fair and reasonable. And the vast majority of employees are, if not ecstatic about working (if they were, the lottery wouldn't do so well) relatively happy and never, ever, get into trouble. Honest employers and honest employees far outweigh those who aren't. Unfortunately there are a minority in both groups who, for one reason or another, are not sterling examples.

Let's be theoretical. The OP may have committed a massive fraud on their employer. They did it because, hypothetically speaking, they were alcoholic and a gambler and couldn't manage their debt as a result. The vast majority of employers would call the police and/or dismiss. Wrong? Cruel? Of course not. How many people would honestly expect the employer to continue to employ this person or ignore the crime? But, rarely admittedly, I have known an employer or two to do just that to all intents and purposes. A final warning yes, "compulsory" treatment, counselling etc. Good employer? Well actually, achieving sainthood! Way beyond what anyone might expect our think "reasonable". But let's celebrate that.

So when one of those rare employers finds that their kindness is repaid by that employee going on to steal a further large amount of money, but this time by diverting finds from their clients accounts - are they kind or stupid?

I want to be clear. I'm hypothesising. Based on real circumstances. I don't know what the OP had done, or if they have done anything at all. If they have done something, I also don't care much. If they've done something bloody stupid and accept that fact, then fair do's. I've advised more than one guilty person. And within a framework of being honest, I'll help them as far as I can to get through it and get back on a path to employment. Being stupid occasionally is a human condition. Everyone makes mistakes and those mistakes don't define the person - what they do with their mistakes does!

But most employers are honest and decent. They may do things that we don't agree with, but that doesn't make them wrong or evil, it makes them employers whose first concern is their business. Which is fine. They are employers and not social services. I've dedicated my life to exposing bad employers. Believe me, I've found quite a few, but nowhere near a majority of them!

[enquirer]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Can I take it that you are in fact guilty of the gross misconduct that you have been accused of?

No, you may not.

Because if you are not then resigning and refusing to co-operate is tantamount to a confession ...

No, it is not.

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

No, you may not.


No, it is not.

I presume you do not understand questions or context? Nor are you the OP.

[jon1965]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Ok lets have another hypothetical situation
An employee defrauds their employer because amongst other things they are under great stress from their customers. When confronted with the allegations it tips them over the edge and they get signed off because they are truly unable to work.
Eventually they attend an investigation and put their hands up and say yes I did this but the reasons were I was giving stock away to customers.
Fair enough they get dismissed but the person who dismisses them does not believe the story and reports them to the police.
Now because it is recorded that the person said yes I did it, the police charge them with a big fraud.

So what to do, they get legal aid and a barrister who really hasn't a clue but says , well you said yes so you must be guilty of the whole lot. If that person had not confessed at the investigation they would still have lost their job but maybe not got a criminal record

Oh and Eloise, of course you can ask what you like, however to suggest guilt because of a refusal to answer is IMHO wrong.

[bluebottle]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

I totally disagree on that. Actually sites like this (or jobs like mine) can warp your perspective. The vast majority of employers are fair and reasonable. And the vast majority of employees are, if not ecstatic about working (if they were, the lottery wouldn't do so well) relatively happy and never, ever, get into trouble. Honest employers and honest employees far outweigh those who aren't. Unfortunately there are a minority in both groups who, for one reason or another, are not sterling examples.

Let's be theoretical. The OP may have committed a massive fraud on their employer. They did it because, hypothetically speaking, they were alcoholic and a gambler and couldn't manage their debt as a result. The vast majority of employers would call the police and/or dismiss. Wrong? Cruel? Of course not. How many people would honestly expect the employer to continue to employ this person or ignore the crime? But, rarely admittedly, I have known an employer or two to do just that to all intents and purposes. A final warning yes, "compulsory" treatment, counselling etc. Good employer? Well actually, achieving sainthood! Way beyond what anyone might expect our think "reasonable". But let's celebrate that.

So when one of those rare employers finds that their kindness is repaid by that employee going on to steal a further large amount of money, but this time by diverting finds from their clients accounts - are they kind or stupid?

I want to be clear. I'm hypothesising. Based on real circumstances. I don't know what the OP had done, or if they have done anything at all. If they have done something, I also don't care much. If they've done something bloody stupid and accept that fact, then fair do's. I've advised more than one guilty person. And within a framework of being honest, I'll help them as far as I can to get through it and get back on a path to employment. Being stupid occasionally is a human condition. Everyone makes mistakes and those mistakes don't define the person - what they do with their mistakes does!

But most employers are honest and decent. They may do things that we don't agree with, but that doesn't make them wrong or evil, it makes them employers whose first concern is their business. Which is fine. They are employers and not social services. I've dedicated my life to exposing bad employers. Believe me, I've found quite a few, but nowhere near a majority of them!

Unfortunately, thfair and reasonable ones I have come across have been outnumbered by those who are not so. This may be coincidence, but there needs to be a root and branch reform of Employment Law and the bad employers hit where it hurts them most.

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Ok lets have another hypothetical situation
An employee defrauds their employer because amongst other things they are under great stress from their customers. When confronted with the allegations it tips them over the edge and they get signed off because they are truly unable to work.
Eventually they attend an investigation and put their hands up and say yes I did this but the reasons were I was giving stock away to customers.
Fair enough they get dismissed but the person who dismisses them does not believe the story and reports them to the police.
Now because it is recorded that the person said yes I did it, the police charge them with a big fraud.

So what to do, they get legal aid and a barrister who really hasn't a clue but says , well you said yes so you must be guilty of the whole lot. If that person had not confessed at the investigation they would still have lost their job but maybe not got a criminal record

Oh and Eloise, of course you can ask what you like, however to suggest guilt because of a refusal to answer is IMHO wrong.

In the first place, I agree entirely. Which is why I said that people shouldn't get signed off unless they absolutely have to. If they have to, they have to. Guilty or not. But that doesn't change what I said - it isn't a help.

And I did not suggest someone was guilty because they didn't answer the question. I said that this is the way the world will see it. I am far more interested in trying to help someone who may have made a mistake - MAY - get past it. Not get out of it, get past it. If the OP doesn't want to say, then fine. But there are plenty of people around here "what did it" and got past it. That doesn't change the fact that as far as the world is concerned, a resignation and sitting on the sick makes them look guilty, not just now but in the future too. If they didn't do it, I'll be here and doing my uttermost to help them. They did, I'll still try to help. And it's different help. But the world will still look at this as it will and that's a fact. I don't control how a potential future employer looks at the information they get from a former employer, but I can help an individual as to how they present even bad news to make it slightly better.

[jon1965]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Eloise , the biggest problem may well be , if something wrong was done, actually admitting it to yourself. Not always as easy as get over it.

I also agree that by not attending and ignoring it people may or even probably take it as an admission of guilt however that is not quite what you said. That is all I was trying to point out.

Another example of a shop near me. It has been the subject of an armed robbery twice in a few months. Unfortunately the same young lad was working at the time and after the second occasion he nearly didn't return to work. Now I know some people would have thought he had something to hide . Thankfully his manager gave him 100% support and I am certain he was not involved

[bluebottle]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Ok lets have another hypothetical situation
An employee defrauds their employer because amongst other things they are under great stress from their customers. When confronted with the allegations it tips them over the edge and they get signed off because they are truly unable to work.
Eventually they attend an investigation and put their hands up and say yes I did this but the reasons were I was giving stock away to customers.
Fair enough they get dismissed but the person who dismisses them does not believe the story and reports them to the police.
Now because it is recorded that the person said yes I did it, the police charge them with a big fraud.

So what to do, they get legal aid and a barrister who really hasn't a clue but says , well you said yes so you must be guilty of the whole lot. If that person had not confessed at the investigation they would still have lost their job but maybe not got a criminal record

Oh and Eloise, of course you can ask what you like, however to suggest guilt because of a refusal to answer is IMHO wrong.

In practice, there are points to prove where criminal offences are concerned, as well as tests as to dishonesty, etc., laid down by the courts, and those points each have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is all very well an employer alleging an employee has committed an offence, but if the police find the points to prove can neither be proven and/or there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations and relevant tests cannot be satisfied, in full, there is no offence and, consequently, no case to answer.

Failure to answer a question does not, in itself, mean that a person is guilty of an offence. Whilst a court may draw an inference that a person's failure to answer a question, under interview conditions, that does not necessarily mean that the person is guilty of an offence. The practice of allowing employers to set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner on the flimsiest of evidence or no evidence at all must stop. Reasonable Belief is too open to abuse and legal provision must be placed on the Statute Book to stamp it out.

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Eloise , the biggest problem may well be , if something wrong was done, actually admitting it to yourself. Not always as easy as get over it.

I also agree that by not attending and ignoring it people may or even probably take it as an admission of guilt however that is not quite what you said. That is all I was trying to point out.

Another example of a shop near me. It has been the subject of an armed robbery twice in a few months. Unfortunately the same young lad was working at the time and after the second occasion he nearly didn't return to work. Now I know some people would have thought he had something to hide . Thankfully his manager gave him 100% support and I am certain he was not involved

I totally agree. But I think my record speaks for itself. And people check these things... That's why you asked me for advice once, wasn't it, although it wasn't for yourself. I qualified my remarks with question marks. "If I'm wrong, tell me"? It isn't easy to admit you did wrong, but we've got a few people here who are regulars who say they did. It isn't easy for them, and some did better than others, but that's life, or the real world, whatever you want to call it. I have said all the way through, burying your head in the sand, guilty or not, won't help. If you want to play precise semantics on every individual sentence then you can prove anything. If you read my posts, I am trying to help. If that help isn't good enough, please say something better instead of having a go at me for not being good enough.

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Jentom - I have contacted Admin to ask that your last post be deleted and for agreement to take this discussion off the site to PM.

[wales01man]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Wont comment on this case,night be a good idea if posters were encouraged to tell the whole story from the first post i read the OPs deleted post how many others did,whatever happens to them i hope they come through this ordeal and Eloise or others can help

[jon1965]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Eloise , I am not just having a go at you for no reason. I look at your posts and then think how I might interpret them. I do not pretend to be eloquent so sometimes this may come across as being confrontational. Being with a Taurean from Barnsley has that effect on you...bloody Yorkshire men.

I have laid my soul bare on this forum and another that shall be nameless and am grateful that on the whole people have been very non judgemental.
For the record, I did wrong but not to the extent that it was claimed. I am paying the price for that although luckily for me I am here. I am also afraid that my experience has given me a rather jaded view of the criminal justice system and barristers along with legal aid. Having bared my soul once I do not want to do it again in public.

[Jentom]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

ok then

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

Eloise , I am not just having a go at you for no reason. I look at your posts and then think how I might interpret them. I do not pretend to be eloquent so sometimes this may come across as being confrontational. Being with a Taurean from Barnsley has that effect on you...bloody Yorkshire men.

I have laid my soul bare on this forum and another that shall be nameless and am grateful that on the whole people have been very non judgemental.
For the record, I did wrong but not to the extent that it was claimed. I am paying the price for that although luckily for me I am here. I am also afraid that my experience has given me a rather jaded view of the criminal justice system and barristers along with legal aid. Having bared my soul once I do not want to do it again in public.

Sorry - I genuinely haven't got a clue what you are talking about, and it probably doesn't matter that I don't. I think you may assume that I know something I don't? But that's fine - just remember that not all gay people are the same, and not all barristers are the same either. If you feel, rightly or not, that you have been let down, you are entitled to that feeling. I wouldn't even begin to argue about how you feel. But if you did something wrong Jon, I really don't care about that. There are things about me that you don't know, and that nobody else here (NOBODY - not even Cel and my close friends) know. Thy aren't "bad things", but they would shock you, I have no doubt. But I can assure you that if you did something in the past I really do not give a damn and you should have got that by now. I care about now and the future, not the past.

There are precious few of "me" on line anywhere. Few lawyers have the time or inclination to help people that aren't paying a bill. There are a damned sight fewer of my background doing it. You don't understand, but an online colleague of mine (and one I respect enormously for her quality of advice) once summed it up really well so I will try to explain - she is a retired solicitor dealing with employment law, so a similar specialism. This is what she said (more or less)....

"I am a solicitor. I know quite a lot of stuff and can deal with quite a lot of stuff. But I am also a politician. I depend on repeat business. I need people to come back to me with their next problem, and I need them to recommend people to me because I was good for them. As much as anything, my skills are not about employment law or tribunals, they are about tea and sympathy. Because that is good for business. [Eloise] is a barrister. An enormously experienced one. You do not get to just ring up and make an appointment with her. She doesn't deal with your unlawful wage deductions or your holiday pay. Her appointments are filtered so that only the most complex and serious cases get through to her office. If she accepts you as a client with a case, you don't get her - you get an entire professional team of experts whose only concern is winning. She and they do not do tea and sympathy, and if they did you wouldn't want them to because it would cost you too much. They are focussed on what is the case, and what do we need to do to win. Nothing else. She will never see you again after the case. She will never get a recommendation from you to a colleague. Her entire business is based on 'win rate' - does she do the job or not? She therefore isn't and doesn't need to be a politician - her job is solely to see if you have something, anything, that can win and to exploit that to destroy your former employer. She has no need to beat around the bush because beating around it won't get you a win. If you want tea come round to my office - I'm cheaper"

She is absolutely right. I don't care what someone has done. I don't care if it is "right" or "wrong". But if they are not telling me the truth - whether that be because they don't want to or are hiding something - then the advice they get is diminished by their choice. And I will say so. Unless you happen to win the lottery, for most people the most valuable thing they have is employment. They will, even on low wages, earn £millions over their lifetime. Sit down and work it out - it is scarily far more than anyone ever thinks. Everything that most people have to hold on to is secured by their employment. So I am not sorry if I don't have enough time to hold on to making every sentence enticing and flowery. I hold down two sites worth of employment advice. I volunteer at a Law Centre helping cases that would never otherwise get legal opinion. I also, amazingly, have a life. So if three +decades of a certain type of professional skill jars every now and then - so be it. You should know better by now. Yes, I've been "blunt" with a few posters - and it's damned rare they don't come back with "fair enough" eventually. I'd rather people got the right advice that candy covered truths.

[Eloise01]

Re: Investigation whilst signed off sick

ok then

Sorry if I am being insulting - but do you know how to get to PM's - I've sent you a message. Some people don't use sites like this and don't get it! If you can't find it, just say and me or someone will tell you how!