This is the way that Contract Cleaners have always worked. If you take something that is not yours without asking first, summary dismissal.
Plus-look at the actions of this former employee subsequently. Are you telling me this person hasn't caused problems before?
I see the circumstances as being important. Although you may argue that there is no difference as far as the law is concerned.
For instance, had a member of staff purchased a sandwich for their lunch, on their way to work. Then left it in a fridge, planning to eat it at lunchtime. If someone, anyone, came along and ate the sandwich, without the owners permission, that would comply with the legal definition of theft. No question she is fired.
What actually happened seems to be. Some sandwiches were prepared for a meeting. At the end of the meeting the leftover sandwiches were taken to the canteen. It was common practice that there was a free for all and the leftovers could be eaten by other staff. Any uneaten sandwiches were binned, at the close of play. I think it quite harsh to be sacking anyone for eating a leftover sandwich, when if it wasnt eaten, it would have ended up in the bin.
This is the way that Contract Cleaners have always worked. If you take something that is not yours without asking first, summary dismissal.
Plus-look at the actions of this former employee subsequently. Are you telling me this person hasn't caused problems before?
I see the circumstances as being important. Although you may argue that there is no difference as far as the law is concerned.
For instance, had a member of staff purchased a sandwich for their lunch, on their way to work. Then left it in a fridge, planning to eat it at lunchtime. If someone, anyone, came along and ate the sandwich, without the owners permission, that would comply with the legal definition of theft. No question she is fired.
What actually happened seems to be. Some sandwiches were prepared for a meeting. At the end of the meeting the leftover sandwiches were taken to the canteen. It was common practice that there was a free for all and the leftovers could be eaten by other staff. Any uneaten sandwiches were binned, at the close of play. I think it quite harsh to be sacking anyone for eating a leftover sandwich, when if it wasnt eaten, it would have ended up in the bin.
The point I was making is that the first example seems to be clearly theft. The second example which seems to be what actually happened, is less clear, to say the least. Is it possible to steal a sandwich that was destined for the bin? The vast majority of the articles I have seen, maintain that she was sacked on the grounds of theft. If it was theft, shouldnt the police have been involved? It is clear that the Solicitors would not have pressed charges. The cleaning company have made a number of references to employment law, rather than their contract, as you suggested.
Cleaner sacked 'for eating leftover tuna sandwich' at London law firm Single mother Gabriela Rodriguez, from Ecuador, ate a sandwich that had been left by lawyers and was reportedly destined for the bin
A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of ‘theft’ for eating a leftover tuna sandwich as she cleaned the offices of a top London law firm, it has been claimed.
“All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.”
A Devonshires spokesperson said the firm did not make a “formal complaint” against Ms Rodriguez.
They added that Devonshires “expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her”.
“Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever,” said the spokesperson.
“This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object, as we never have done, to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.”
Total Clean - which provides cleaning services for commercial and office spaces across London - described the allegations against it as “misleading and inaccurate” and maintained it has acted in accordance with employment law.
This is the way that Contract Cleaners have always worked. If you take something that is not yours without asking first, summary dismissal.
Plus-look at the actions of this former employee subsequently. Are you telling me this person hasn't caused problems before?
I see the circumstances as being important. Although you may argue that there is no difference as far as the law is concerned.
For instance, had a member of staff purchased a sandwich for their lunch, on their way to work. Then left it in a fridge, planning to eat it at lunchtime. If someone, anyone, came along and ate the sandwich, without the owners permission, that would comply with the legal definition of theft. No question she is fired.
What actually happened seems to be. Some sandwiches were prepared for a meeting. At the end of the meeting the leftover sandwiches were taken to the canteen. It was common practice that there was a free for all and the leftovers could be eaten by other staff. Any uneaten sandwiches were binned, at the close of play. I think it quite harsh to be sacking anyone for eating a leftover sandwich, when if it wasnt eaten, it would have ended up in the bin.
This is the way that Contract Cleaners have always worked. If you take something that is not yours without asking first, summary dismissal.
Plus-look at the actions of this former employee subsequently. Are you telling me this person hasn't caused problems before?
I see the circumstances as being important. Although you may argue that there is no difference as far as the law is concerned.
For instance, had a member of staff purchased a sandwich for their lunch, on their way to work. Then left it in a fridge, planning to eat it at lunchtime. If someone, anyone, came along and ate the sandwich, without the owners permission, that would comply with the legal definition of theft. No question she is fired.
What actually happened seems to be. Some sandwiches were prepared for a meeting. At the end of the meeting the leftover sandwiches were taken to the canteen. It was common practice that there was a free for all and the leftovers could be eaten by other staff. Any uneaten sandwiches were binned, at the close of play. I think it quite harsh to be sacking anyone for eating a leftover sandwich, when if it wasnt eaten, it would have ended up in the bin.
The point I was making is that the first example seems to be clearly theft. The second example which seems to be what actually happened, is less clear, to say the least. Is it possible to steal a sandwich that was destined for the bin? The vast majority of the articles I have seen, maintain that she was sacked on the grounds of theft. If it was theft, shouldnt the police have been involved? It is clear that the Solicitors would not have pressed charges. The cleaning company have made a number of references to employment law, rather than their contract, as you suggested.
Cleaner sacked 'for eating leftover tuna sandwich' at London law firm Single mother Gabriela Rodriguez, from Ecuador, ate a sandwich that had been left by lawyers and was reportedly destined for the bin
A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of ‘theft’ for eating a leftover tuna sandwich as she cleaned the offices of a top London law firm, it has been claimed.
“All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.”
A Devonshires spokesperson said the firm did not make a “formal complaint” against Ms Rodriguez.
They added that Devonshires “expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her”.
“Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever,” said the spokesperson.
“This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object, as we never have done, to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.”
Total Clean - which provides cleaning services for commercial and office spaces across London - described the allegations against it as “misleading and inaccurate” and maintained it has acted in accordance with employment law.
You keep trying to prove your point. While proving mine. Because I have 30 years' experience of this. Where I have acted for the Cleaner in this exact situation. Where I have acted for the Cleaning Company in this exact situation. And where I have acted for the end user in this exact situation.
So-to try and explain this to anyone genuinely interested in this sort of stuff, this is what they really mean when they say the stuff you put in bold:-
"Cleaner sacked for eating leftover sandwich". No. Sacked for carrying out an act warranting summary dismissal, as expressly contained in her contract, and expressly brought to her attention
"A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of "theft". This is not "theft" within the ordinary, criminal law, sense. It is a Contractual definition of Theft expressly incorporated into the contract. That is why "theft" is in quotes
"All steps taken..." Employers always say that. They have to.
The Devonshires quotes. Done for both legal reasons, and to help Devonshires. Firstly, to show that they are in no way the Employer, and are not secretly directing this. Secondly, so that if the Union goes ahead with their threat to sue Devonshires, the Union will learn a very expensive lesson. Thirdly, this action relates to the continued profitability of the Cleaning Company. It's not the Solicitors fight. And finally, the Union are waging a Class War against the entire legal profession-they want to ensure they can get Cleaners.
This is the way that Contract Cleaners have always worked. If you take something that is not yours without asking first, summary dismissal.
Plus-look at the actions of this former employee subsequently. Are you telling me this person hasn't caused problems before?
I see the circumstances as being important. Although you may argue that there is no difference as far as the law is concerned.
For instance, had a member of staff purchased a sandwich for their lunch, on their way to work. Then left it in a fridge, planning to eat it at lunchtime. If someone, anyone, came along and ate the sandwich, without the owners permission, that would comply with the legal definition of theft. No question she is fired.
What actually happened seems to be. Some sandwiches were prepared for a meeting. At the end of the meeting the leftover sandwiches were taken to the canteen. It was common practice that there was a free for all and the leftovers could be eaten by other staff. Any uneaten sandwiches were binned, at the close of play. I think it quite harsh to be sacking anyone for eating a leftover sandwich, when if it wasnt eaten, it would have ended up in the bin.
This is the way that Contract Cleaners have always worked. If you take something that is not yours without asking first, summary dismissal.
Plus-look at the actions of this former employee subsequently. Are you telling me this person hasn't caused problems before?
I see the circumstances as being important. Although you may argue that there is no difference as far as the law is concerned.
For instance, had a member of staff purchased a sandwich for their lunch, on their way to work. Then left it in a fridge, planning to eat it at lunchtime. If someone, anyone, came along and ate the sandwich, without the owners permission, that would comply with the legal definition of theft. No question she is fired.
What actually happened seems to be. Some sandwiches were prepared for a meeting. At the end of the meeting the leftover sandwiches were taken to the canteen. It was common practice that there was a free for all and the leftovers could be eaten by other staff. Any uneaten sandwiches were binned, at the close of play. I think it quite harsh to be sacking anyone for eating a leftover sandwich, when if it wasnt eaten, it would have ended up in the bin.
The point I was making is that the first example seems to be clearly theft. The second example which seems to be what actually happened, is less clear, to say the least. Is it possible to steal a sandwich that was destined for the bin? The vast majority of the articles I have seen, maintain that she was sacked on the grounds of theft. If it was theft, shouldnt the police have been involved? It is clear that the Solicitors would not have pressed charges. The cleaning company have made a number of references to employment law, rather than their contract, as you suggested.
Cleaner sacked 'for eating leftover tuna sandwich' at London law firm Single mother Gabriela Rodriguez, from Ecuador, ate a sandwich that had been left by lawyers and was reportedly destined for the bin
A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of ‘theft’ for eating a leftover tuna sandwich as she cleaned the offices of a top London law firm, it has been claimed.
“All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.”
A Devonshires spokesperson said the firm did not make a “formal complaint” against Ms Rodriguez.
They added that Devonshires “expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her”.
“Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever,” said the spokesperson.
“This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object, as we never have done, to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.”
Total Clean - which provides cleaning services for commercial and office spaces across London - described the allegations against it as “misleading and inaccurate” and maintained it has acted in accordance with employment law.
You keep trying to prove your point. While proving mine. Because I have 30 years' experience of this. Where I have acted for the Cleaner in this exact situation. Where I have acted for the Cleaning Company in this exact situation. And where I have acted for the end user in this exact situation.
So-to try and explain this to anyone genuinely interested in this sort of stuff, this is what they really mean when they say the stuff you put in bold:-
"Cleaner sacked for eating leftover sandwich". No. Sacked for carrying out an act warranting summary dismissal, as expressly contained in her contract, and expressly brought to her attention
"A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of "theft". This is not "theft" within the ordinary, criminal law, sense. It is a Contractual definition of Theft expressly incorporated into the contract. That is why "theft" is in quotes
"All steps taken..." Employers always say that. They have to.
The Devonshires quotes. Done for both legal reasons, and to help Devonshires. Firstly, to show that they are in no way the Employer, and are not secretly directing this. Secondly, so that if the Union goes ahead with their threat to sue Devonshires, the Union will learn a very expensive lesson. Thirdly, this action relates to the continued profitability of the Cleaning Company. It's not the Solicitors fight. And finally, the Union are waging a Class War against the entire legal profession-they want to ensure they can get Cleaners.
Well I am now watching legal dramas on Prime, in an effort to improve my legal knowledge. There is that, and I am fed up of arguing over a sandwich.
Comments
What's the importance of the Last Word .........if it's not the Last. !
The second example which seems to be what actually happened, is less clear, to say the least.
Is it possible to steal a sandwich that was destined for the bin?
The vast majority of the articles I have seen, maintain that she was sacked on the grounds of theft.
If it was theft, shouldnt the police have been involved?
It is clear that the Solicitors would not have pressed charges.
The cleaning company have made a number of references to employment law, rather than their contract, as you suggested.
Cleaner sacked 'for eating leftover tuna sandwich' at London law firm
Single mother Gabriela Rodriguez, from Ecuador, ate a sandwich that had been left by lawyers and was reportedly destined for the bin
A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of ‘theft’ for eating a leftover tuna sandwich as she cleaned the offices of a top London law firm, it has been claimed.
“All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.”
A Devonshires spokesperson said the firm did not make a “formal complaint” against Ms Rodriguez.
They added that Devonshires “expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her”.
“Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever,” said the spokesperson.
“This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object, as we never have done, to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.”
Total Clean - which provides cleaning services for commercial and office spaces across London - described the allegations against it as “misleading and inaccurate” and maintained it has acted in accordance with employment law.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cleaner-fired-eating-tuna-sandwich-london-law-firm-total-clean-b1140004.html
" Over " It's not over till it's over...... my offering.
The point I was making ........
.....just has to be'Rammed down your throat'
So-to try and explain this to anyone genuinely interested in this sort of stuff, this is what they really mean when they say the stuff you put in bold:-
"Cleaner sacked for eating leftover sandwich". No. Sacked for carrying out an act warranting summary dismissal, as expressly contained in her contract, and expressly brought to her attention
"A cleaner was sacked on the grounds of "theft". This is not "theft" within the ordinary, criminal law, sense. It is a Contractual definition of Theft expressly incorporated into the contract. That is why "theft" is in quotes
"All steps taken..." Employers always say that. They have to.
The Devonshires quotes. Done for both legal reasons, and to help Devonshires. Firstly, to show that they are in no way the Employer, and are not secretly directing this. Secondly, so that if the Union goes ahead with their threat to sue Devonshires, the Union will learn a very expensive lesson. Thirdly, this action relates to the continued profitability of the Cleaning Company. It's not the Solicitors fight. And finally, the Union are waging a Class War against the entire legal profession-they want to ensure they can get Cleaners.
There is that, and I am fed up of arguing over a sandwich.