Mrs NW Suspended on full pay!!
Discussion
Siscar said:
As for posting rates, it depends what is your main activity, but I can assure you that if you go through a phase when your primary focus is fighting cancer then your rate may climb a little, it's a good way to occupy time.
Good luck, mate. Makes me realise how lucky I am, in that my main concerns are blood sugar levels and a leg wracked with pain from hip problems, attempting to get by when the department of Wallies and Plonkers tell me I need this or that aid ,but advice is all you get.
As for posting rates, it depends what is your main activity, but I can assure you that if you go through a phase when your primary focus is fighting cancer then your rate may climb a little, it's a good way to occupy time.
Good luck, mate. Makes me realise how lucky I am, in that my main concerns are blood sugar levels and a leg wracked with pain from hip problems, attempting to get by when the department of Wallies and Plonkers tell me I need this or that aid ,but advice is all you get.
[quote=Who me ?]
Good luck, mate. Makes me realise how lucky I am, in that my main concerns are blood sugar levels and a leg wracked with pain from hip problems, attempting to get by when the department of Wallies and Plonkers tell me I need this or that aid ,but advice is all you get.
[/quote]
Oh, all things are relative, you sound like your problems are having more impact on you than mine are on me. Illness of any form is unpleasant but keeping positive about things is the key element.
Good luck, mate. Makes me realise how lucky I am, in that my main concerns are blood sugar levels and a leg wracked with pain from hip problems, attempting to get by when the department of Wallies and Plonkers tell me I need this or that aid ,but advice is all you get.
[/quote]
Oh, all things are relative, you sound like your problems are having more impact on you than mine are on me. Illness of any form is unpleasant but keeping positive about things is the key element.
IanA2 said:
Siscar said:
Red Devil said:
Why are you muddying the waters? Whether or not she was absent from work on holiday at the time of the funds allegedly going missing is a matter of fact not opinion (It's binary - 0 or 1: either she was or she wasn't). The OP says she was. Are you suggesting she was fibbing to him? If so, what does she stand to gain by it?
I'm saying that we have no idea. Maybe it was discovered when she was on holiday but they suspect that it may have happened earlier. We have no idea.To accept the facts as portrayed by the OP you do have to work on the premise that employer is really stupid, of course they may be, we have no way of knowing. But accuse someone of stealing when they were demonstrably not there would be really dumb, and maybe they are, but maybe it's not so simple as that. We don't know.
Red Devil said:
Given what happened at the hearing I think stupidity/incompetence ranks pretty high on the scale of things. If this goes to a Tribunal, I suspect that trying to ambush the employee by introducing an additional/alternative accusation when they find their original one has no legs isn't going to go down well for them.
If you look back it was an investigative meeting, not a disciplinary meeting. There is nothing in law that says precisely how this stage should be conducted but the implication is that they aren't running the process correctly is a leap of faith. If accused of helping herself to wastage then whether or not she did and whether an appropriate sanction was applied by the disciplinary process would be what a tribunal would care about.
Siscar said:
There is nothing in law that says precisely how this stage should be conducted
That may well be the case but ACAS has quite specific guidelines which are ignored at the employer's peril. As for the Wastage thing, Mrs NW and each of her staff have an allowance of 2.50 per day which they more often than not take from the wastage bucket (it was the only term I could think of!) once they've finished working. As stated, they are too busy to eat at other times.
NormalWisdom said:
That may well be the case but ACAS has quite specific guidelines which are ignored at the employer's peril.
As for the Wastage thing, Mrs NW and each of her staff have an allowance of 2.50 per day which they more often than not take from the wastage bucket (it was the only term I could think of!) once they've finished working. As stated, they are too busy to eat at other times.
I'm not a lawyer (just for disclosure)As for the Wastage thing, Mrs NW and each of her staff have an allowance of 2.50 per day which they more often than not take from the wastage bucket (it was the only term I could think of!) once they've finished working. As stated, they are too busy to eat at other times.
Has the employer agreed to this working practice?
NormalWisdom said:
They have marginally more than zero in documented working practice!
OK, I'm going to play barrack room non qualified lawyer for a second / devils advocate.An employer doesn't have to document every process or guideline.
The food belonged to the business, including as waste.
As clearly demonstrated, the tracking of wastage is very important and a key measure.
The staff, by eating part of the wastage (even a small amount) would skew this measure.
And, it isn't paid for by the staff, so theft (?)
As I said, devils advocate and not how I would approach it as an employer, but it's a possible angle.
Vaud said:
OK, I'm going to play barrack room non qualified lawyer for a second / devils advocate.
An employer doesn't have to document every process or guideline.
The food belonged to the business, including as waste.
As clearly demonstrated, the tracking of wastage is very important and a key measure.
The staff, by eating part of the wastage (even a small amount) would skew this measure.
And, it isn't paid for by the staff, so theft (?)
As I said, devils advocate and not how I would approach it as an employer, but it's a possible angle.
Incorrect - The wastage % amount is calculated before it is taken and besides, they never take more than their 2.50 allowance. Sure it isn't correct procedure but it's best for everyone.An employer doesn't have to document every process or guideline.
The food belonged to the business, including as waste.
As clearly demonstrated, the tracking of wastage is very important and a key measure.
The staff, by eating part of the wastage (even a small amount) would skew this measure.
And, it isn't paid for by the staff, so theft (?)
As I said, devils advocate and not how I would approach it as an employer, but it's a possible angle.
Edited by NormalWisdom on Tuesday 27th May 08:44
I've been following the thread from the beginning and to me, as others have said, it's clear they want rid of her for whatever reason.
From what you have said it appears that they know they can't pin the theft on her as she wasn't in the building so now they are going to to after her for the wastage that the staff eat. As there is no documented process they have decided they can change their stance on this and use it against your wife.
From what you have said it appears that they know they can't pin the theft on her as she wasn't in the building so now they are going to to after her for the wastage that the staff eat. As there is no documented process they have decided they can change their stance on this and use it against your wife.
Anonamoose said:
As there is no documented process they have decided they can change their stance on this and use it against your wife.
This would indeed appear to be the case. One would have hoped common sense would prevail.Facts:
All wastage must be binned (this is a documented procedure)
All kitchen staff have a daily food allowance of 2.50
Kitchen staff are usually too busy to eat until the end of the shift so rarely get a chance to spend the 2.50
When there is edible wastage (i.e. sandwiches/wraps) they will take, up to the value of their allowance, produce from the wastage bucket. This is after Mrs NW has calculated all the daily figures so it does not skew thae wastage % - In fact, had they had time to use their allowance during the day, the wastage figures would be even lower.
There have been several occasions where wastage has been 0% and her manager has told her that cannot be submitted to HQ and to artificially inflate the number...............
elanfan said:
The theft accusation is spurious at best and malicious at worst. This accusation must be well known now at the school and is doubtless the subject of gossip and tittle tattle and whatever the outcome will malign your Mrs. From what you say it seems there is no way your wife could have been involved - with this in mind do you not have grounds for a defamation of character suit against them? perhaps one point to drop in to the next meeting??
Norm - what is your view of this?NormalWisdom said:
Incorrect - The wastage % amount is calculated before it is taken and besides, they never take more than their 2.50 allowance. Sure it isn't correct procedure but it's best for everyone.
Devil's advocate from me, too-If you (your wife) deviate from correct procedure then it makes it harder to complain when others deviate from correct procedure.
elanfan said:
elanfan said:
The theft accusation is spurious at best and malicious at worst. This accusation must be well known now at the school and is doubtless the subject of gossip and tittle tattle and whatever the outcome will malign your Mrs. From what you say it seems there is no way your wife could have been involved - with this in mind do you not have grounds for a defamation of character suit against them? perhaps one point to drop in to the next meeting??
Norm - what is your view of this?This has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
NormalWisdom said:
Siscar said:
There is nothing in law that says precisely how this stage should be conducted
That may well be the case but ACAS has quite specific guidelines which are ignored at the employer's peril. Process matters but as with a lot of legal issues people sometimes get too hooked up on it, obviously it needs to be right but it's pretty rare that someone who is guilty of something is going to be let off because of some point of detail, particularly in employment when a lot isn't that defined in the first place.
NormalWisdom said:
As for the Wastage thing, Mrs NW and each of her staff have an allowance of 2.50 per day which they more often than not take from the wastage bucket (it was the only term I could think of!) once they've finished working. As stated, they are too busy to eat at other times.
And she may well be entirely within her rights, I am not trying to imply that she is guilty of anything, it's just that in these threads people post stuff that really isn't true on process and detail and it's great for building your hopes but not so useful in accurately defining your expectations.NormalWisdom said:
Sorry, I missed the original post.
This has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
That's pre-judgment of the outcomeThis has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
That's a very big no no
cirian75 said:
NormalWisdom said:
Sorry, I missed the original post.
This has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
That's pre-judgment of the outcomeThis has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
That's a very big no no
mondeoman said:
cirian75 said:
NormalWisdom said:
Sorry, I missed the original post.
This has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
That's pre-judgment of the outcomeThis has indeed been the case, in fact her "temporary" replacement was introduced as the new Catering Manager the day after she was suspended!!! Mrs NW has mentioned defamation of character but I am just a "Google Lawyer", the Union are however pursuing a number of angles on her behalf and if necessary I will engage BV's solicitor recommendation who has already been very helpful.
That's a very big no no
mondeoman said:
I'd suggest that that could go a long way towards constructive dismissal...
Not really I am afraid.However, the other conduct may (such as suspending her for a theft which took place whilst she was not present). Currently we are however hovering near her not acting quickly enough to affirm the dismissal.
There is also the possibility of harassment or victimisation, but without more it is difficult to pin this one too.
I don't suppose she raised any complaints about conduct/health and safety or anything before all this arose?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff