Mrs NW Suspended on full pay!!
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
OP, did it go as expected?
In all honesty she isn't too sure how it went. Present from her employer was an external "investigator" and the HR director (in job for just 3 days). Having established Mrs NW wasn't going to lie down and get steam-rollered and realising their "facts" didn't correlate or support the accusations they tried to nail her on other aspects of her performance, primarily "wastage". Wastage is the amount of produce leftover at the end of the day. Mrs NW has been running at a rate of around 4% (expectation is c10%) so very efficient. Wastage should be binned. Now when there is something edible left and bearing in mind she and her staff are often too busy to eat themselves, they might dip into some of that wastage (who really wants to see perfectly decent food thrown away?). Apparently this is against policy and that seems to be where their main focus has shifted.........Mrs NW will send me the notes over the weekend for me to analyse and the employers have committed to getting back to her by the end of next week.
They wanted to see her bank account details for the period in question, Mrs NW refused and suggested they brought the police in if they were so certain and that she would be quite happy to share bank details with them. I think their sails were then totally wind-free!
All in limbo for now!
To me they ve realised now they ve bitten this much off they ve got to find a way to justify it.
And as you say shifting to the wastage is exactly the way they are trying to go.
If they had asked me for my bank statements id of said exactly the same too.
they ve now got all week to either dig themselves a deeper hole or find a decent way out of this with out looking very stupid.
Accused of theft, and now its wastage.
One she was not there for and the other shes 6% under.
And as you say shifting to the wastage is exactly the way they are trying to go.
If they had asked me for my bank statements id of said exactly the same too.
they ve now got all week to either dig themselves a deeper hole or find a decent way out of this with out looking very stupid.
Accused of theft, and now its wastage.
One she was not there for and the other shes 6% under.
NormalWisdom said:
Jasandjules said:
OP, did it go as expected?
In all honesty she isn't too sure how it went. Present from her employer was an external "investigator" and the HR director (in job for just 3 days). Having established Mrs NW wasn't going to lie down and get steam-rollered and realising their "facts" didn't correlate or support the accusations they tried to nail her on other aspects of her performance, primarily "wastage". Wastage is the amount of produce leftover at the end of the day. Mrs NW has been running at a rate of around 4% (expectation is c10%) so very efficient. Wastage should be binned. Now when there is something edible left and bearing in mind she and her staff are often too busy to eat themselves, they might dip into some of that wastage (who really wants to see perfectly decent food thrown away?). Apparently this is against policy and that seems to be where their main focus has shifted.........Mrs NW will send me the notes over the weekend for me to analyse and the employers have committed to getting back to her by the end of next week.
They wanted to see her bank account details for the period in question, Mrs NW refused and suggested they brought the police in if they were so certain and that she would be quite happy to share bank details with them. I think their sails were then totally wind-free!
All in limbo for now!
The overarching impression given by the thread, which may or may not reflect reality, is that the employer wants rid and is seeking any possible justification. The question for the employee is, do they want to work in that environment, or is it better to move on and work somewhere where they are appreciated?
If they feel the employer needs to be taught a lesson to prevent them doing it to others in future, and/or the employee feels they should be compensated, they can either negotiate it as part of a leaving settlement or, if agreement can't be found, via tribunal (assuming there's a cause of action available).
If they feel the employer needs to be taught a lesson to prevent them doing it to others in future, and/or the employee feels they should be compensated, they can either negotiate it as part of a leaving settlement or, if agreement can't be found, via tribunal (assuming there's a cause of action available).
Hi NW. I've been keeping an eye on progress of this for some time, I'm horrified at the way Mrs NW is being treated. At the very least I'd be informing these idiots at the next meeting that Mrs NW has been falsely accused of misconduct and therefore the mutual trust has been broken by the employer. I would then ask them to formally retract said allegation with a full formal apology, or as the accusation is theft to report it to the police. It is also worth pointing out that if there are any other performance related issues they would like to discuss they need to present their case in writing with notice prior to any meeting, they should not be bringing up new matters in a meeting about somethings else. If there is a HR person present they should stop the meeting at that point.
It's great that you are documenting this in detail, from the facts presented here the employer does not have a leg to stand on. If you haven't spoken to a lawyer yet (great advice from BV) have you at least spoken to ACAS? I've found them very helpful in the past.
It's great that you are documenting this in detail, from the facts presented here the employer does not have a leg to stand on. If you haven't spoken to a lawyer yet (great advice from BV) have you at least spoken to ACAS? I've found them very helpful in the past.
Surely their own policy would oblige them to report the allegedly missing money to the Police? I think your wife's response on this was spot on.
They clearly want rid of your wife. IMO you and your wife need to decide is how to part from these thugs. Please don't believe that she can go back and that things will be ok. They never will, they will escalate matters and make her life miserable. Before you know where you are you will be tilting at windmills.
Decide on your strategy and get a good employment lawyer.
They clearly want rid of your wife. IMO you and your wife need to decide is how to part from these thugs. Please don't believe that she can go back and that things will be ok. They never will, they will escalate matters and make her life miserable. Before you know where you are you will be tilting at windmills.
Decide on your strategy and get a good employment lawyer.
Edited by IanA2 on Saturday 24th May 12:36
Is Mrs NW effectively stealing the wasted food?
If tramps can't take stuff from the bins outside restaurants (is that true?), then perhaps the same principle applies to leftovers in the kitchen? Just because the owner doesn't want something, doesn't mean that someone else can just help themselves?
Simon.
If tramps can't take stuff from the bins outside restaurants (is that true?), then perhaps the same principle applies to leftovers in the kitchen? Just because the owner doesn't want something, doesn't mean that someone else can just help themselves?
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
Is Mrs NW effectively stealing the wasted food?
If tramps can't take stuff from the bins outside restaurants (is that true?), then perhaps the same principle applies to leftovers in the kitchen? Just because the owner doesn't want something, doesn't mean that someone else can just help themselves?
Simon.
But from a practical, sensible employer point of view in say, a school canteen, a few lunch staff eating a few left overs after the meals have been served would seem awfully stringent. Aren't happy well fed staff better performers... At no real, material loss to the company? Or could this be seen as covering up wastage?If tramps can't take stuff from the bins outside restaurants (is that true?), then perhaps the same principle applies to leftovers in the kitchen? Just because the owner doesn't want something, doesn't mean that someone else can just help themselves?
Simon.
The flip side might be that staff will begin to form an expectation of being fed at their employer's expense. If the employer knows about that and does nothing to stop it, they are potentially tying themselves to an implied contractual provision that they cannot automatically rescind without thinking about it.
Also, staff might begin to take advantage of the situation to suit themselves, for example making more food than is necessary to feed the clients or giving the clients smaller portions to protect their own after service.
Also, staff might begin to take advantage of the situation to suit themselves, for example making more food than is necessary to feed the clients or giving the clients smaller portions to protect their own after service.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff