Wrongly handled?

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

charitynjw
There has been No dismisal to date just a hearing and a date set for a second hearing.She has been employed for about 3 years at the same premises.I feel there is a reason to dismiss on evidence supplied by the other party but my SD has made no admission, she has stated mistakes are commonplace, substantiated by the number of voids that are done.
I think that answers your questions.
bluebottle
Having discussed the suspected search with my SD she says it is quite possible that the manager just picked upher colleagues bag and realised there was 4 items in it and upon checking the staff purchase log found only 2 paid for, rather than actually going into the bag.It seems that when questioned by the security officer, an ex policeman, she crumbled but then recovered trying to put the blame on my SD claiming she din't notice. all the goods are of a personal hygiene and use nature and do not include any you mention.
Her colleague has been to ACAS to day and they say she has reason to take them to task, just another point. My SD was sent copies of her colleagues statement with a copy of hers own one. It seems from reading her colleagues one that although the pages are numbered, by hand on the bottom sheet 2 does not follow on to sheet 3. E.G, last line of page 2 "did you----" top of page 3 "how did----". Two questions but no recorded answer to the first. The more I get into this the less I like what I am seeing.
I agree that she gets what she deserves but....... the whole thing has been handled poorly and questions still remain and ACAS seem to think these should not be allowed to go unchallenged. this is not a case of lets go the ET and cause problems or get money its a case of my SD did wrong and so have the company in my opinion (and ACAS). They are guilty of not having the correct procedures in place for staff purchases, should they have had this could not have happened. Everywhere I have worked you need a manager authority and some form of signed requisition.
Sorry to bore but I had a staff member in crown court for theft of money over a period of three years. whilst he was found guilty his sentence was minimum because we were heavily criticize for not having "controls" in place. Anyone that buys a car from a main dealer will find the salesman does the sale and you are then shown into the Business Manager. That change was a direct result of this case. My SD employers have made the same mistake they have not taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft.

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

charitynjw
There has been No dismisal to date just a hearing and a date set for a second hearing.She has been employed for about 3 years at the same premises.I feel there is a reason to dismiss on evidence supplied by the other party but my SD has made no admission, she has stated mistakes are commonplace, substantiated by the number of voids that are done.
I think that answers your questions.

Hi peter p

From your previous posts, I gather that SD is at present in a disciplinary.

If that is so, one of the possible outcomes is dismissal.

Or is it just an investigation?

Edit - scrub this - she has, according to your first post, resigned

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Peter,

I understand your concern over this, and your desire to protect your SD as far as possible. However, it also seems you do not want to listen to what may be good counsel. Sincere apologies if I'm wrong.

I know that for somewhere like, say, Tesco, all the staff need to do to purchase something is go to a till, have their items scanned and a card scanned (presumably for staff discount) - that's it. This is pretty commonplace throughout supermarkets, so I imagine is similar in other High Street stores. What sort of measures would you expect to see in place?

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Hi peter p

From your previous posts, I gather that SD is at present in a disciplinary.

If that is so, one of the possible outcomes is dismissal.

Or is it just an investigation?

Edit - scrub this - she has, according to your first post, resigned

If the reason for resignation is the threat of dismissal, he/she will be taken to have been dismissed.
Sheffield v Oxford Controls Ltd (1979)

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Wrongly handled?

I agree. I don't your SD has any chance of succeeding with any claim. She was in the wrong, and there is no reason why she should be given a good reference. To be hard, she should have thought about that before doing what she did.

However, if she is lucky, many references nowadays only confirm dates that were worked, and don't comment beyond that unless a sacking has taken place. In your SD's case it hasn't. Sadly she forfeited any rights or opportunities to make amends the moment she resigned, but a bit of a Catch 22 situation.

Neither myself nor others I know had much of a chance of succeeding with an ET claim but we still put them forward because that is a good way to push for a settlement, an agreed reference being an important part of the settlement. The small amount of money was gone in a flash but the agreed reference, for a five year period, was invaluable in all cases I know. One of them was a claim for constructive dismissal which didn't have much of a chance, however, employers like commercial settlements. Obviously things have changed now you have to pay a fee to submit a claim. Like I said before, it's a gamble.

In reality, these days references are pretty much confirming dates, at least in my experience that's what a lot of employers do. Even when you make a mistake, you still need to earn a living, the need for a suitable reference is understandable, otherwise what are people supposed to do?

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

The problem now is that it costs a lot of money to progress an ET claim.

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

The problem now is that it costs a lot of money to progress an ET claim.

.......... with a tiny chance of success.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Wrongly handled?

The problem now is that it costs a lot of money to progress an ET claim.

I know! :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[bluebottle]

Re: Wrongly handled?

charitynjw
There has been No dismisal to date just a hearing and a date set for a second hearing.She has been employed for about 3 years at the same premises.I feel there is a reason to dismiss on evidence supplied by the other party but my SD has made no admission, she has stated mistakes are commonplace, substantiated by the number of voids that are done.
I think that answers your questions.
bluebottle
Having discussed the suspected search with my SD she says it is quite possible that the manager just picked upher colleagues bag and realised there was 4 items in it and upon checking the staff purchase log found only 2 paid for, rather than actually going into the bag.It seems that when questioned by the security officer, an ex policeman, she crumbled but then recovered trying to put the blame on my SD claiming she din't notice. all the goods are of a personal hygiene and use nature and do not include any you mention.
Her colleague has been to ACAS to day and they say she has reason to take them to task, just another point. My SD was sent copies of her colleagues statement with a copy of hers own one. It seems from reading her colleagues one that although the pages are numbered, by hand on the bottom sheet 2 does not follow on to sheet 3. E.G, last line of page 2 "did you----" top of page 3 "how did----". Two questions but no recorded answer to the first. The more I get into this the less I like what I am seeing.
I agree that she gets what she deserves but....... the whole thing has been handled poorly and questions still remain and ACAS seem to think these should not be allowed to go unchallenged. this is not a case of lets go the ET and cause problems or get money its a case of my SD did wrong and so have the company in my opinion (and ACAS). They are guilty of not having the correct procedures in place for staff purchases, should they have had this could not have happened. Everywhere I have worked you need a manager authority and some form of signed requisition.
Sorry to bore but I had a staff member in crown court for theft of money over a period of three years. whilst he was found guilty his sentence was minimum because we were heavily criticize for not having "controls" in place. Anyone that buys a car from a main dealer will find the salesman does the sale and you are then shown into the Business Manager. That change was a direct result of this case. My SD employers have made the same mistake they have not taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft.

If the security officer is an ex-policeman, as I am, he should know better. And he should certainly not be allowing managers to go picking up employees' bags or other personal possessions without their consent and certainly not without them being present. I note what you say about the case that resulted in a judge criticising a lack of proper controls to prevent theft, fraud, etc.. I came across similar cases when I was a CID officer. Judges have little patience with complainants who contribute to a crime against them through negligence, sheer carelessness or failing to have proper and adequate controls in place to prevent crime. So what you have said does not surprise me in the least. I find myself agreeing with ACAS in your SD's case.

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

If the security officer is an ex-policeman, as I am, he should know better. And he should certainly not be allowing managers to go picking up employees' bags or other personal possessions without their consent and certainly not without them being present. I note what you say about the case that resulted in a judge criticising a lack of proper controls to prevent theft, fraud, etc.. I came across similar cases when I was a CID officer. Judges have little patience with complainants who contribute to a crime against them through negligence, sheer carelessness or failing to have proper and adequate controls in place to prevent crime. So what you have said does not surprise me in the least. I find myself agreeing with ACAS in your SD's case.

I don't think you can say that without giving ample proof. It is a massive assumption and generalisation. :beagle:

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Your argument here seem to be that, as there was an opportunity available to do a wrong act, there should be little or no culpability when that opportunity is used.

However, the case here demonstrates an important principle.

There is a mutual obligation to ensure & preserve trust and confidence in the relationship.
It is recognised that some 'relationships' in law have greater responsibilities than others.
Given the more 'intimate' nature of these, a serious breach may well go to the root of the relationship, irrevocably undermining any chance of repairing it.
Just because there is the available opportunity to commit an act which destroys the trust, it cannot be a defence to then say the opportunity should not have been there, or that it was reasonable to act on that opportunity.
I don't think that argument would hold much water in a court/tribunal.

[wales01man]

Re: Wrongly handled?

I think this is demonstrated well in the TV programme Baitcar,just because the keys are left in a car does not make it right to steal it ,same in a store I expect just because staff can scan another staff members shopping and miis?some does not make it right that management are not there to oversee it,there are 2 words that come to mind here Trust and theft, if you employ people you expect to trust them not to steal without the trust you would never employ someone?

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Ok lets see where we are on this.
My SD was party to theft, by knowingly not ringing all items into the till for another member of staff-allegedly.
I accept she would have very little chance of winning an ET etc. I also understand that the possible search, if it was carried out, is erring on the side of in correctness.
I also understand that the staff purchase scheme in operation was a bit woolly. All these points are part of the original question "Wrongly Handled?" but I believe the worst part of all this is the fact that the hearing was private & confidential and both staff members were told this and that they were not to discuss this with anyone. However the manager breached this by informing the staff of why they had been suspended and then followed this up the next day by telling them all the staff that both were going to be sacked. This was 5 days before they were due to return for a final hearing. I feel this is so wrong.
Our town is a small market one and everybody know everybody else and my SD became aware this had been leaked out when talking to 2 different people not involved in the shop, she was even asked about it by a woman on the tills in Tesco who she knew.

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Unfortunately, I believe that a complete defense against defamation is that it is the truth.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Unfortunately, I believe that a complete defense against defamation is that it is the truth.

Taking legal action for defamation is a lot more involved (and much more expen$ive) than submitting a claim to the ET. When I got sacked, a colleague of mine who also got sacked, but who was a contractor using his own limited company (and who is not without mean$), considered the defamation route, because him and his company had been mentioned as being associated with another company, owned by a friend of mine, who also got sacked from another bank at the same time, when there was no association between them. He took legal advice on the defamation side of things as well as the employment side, and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth the hassle and cost. :sad: