You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
The first thing to say is that that Chief Operating Officer should hang his head in shame.
Delays can happen in this sort of case. There are genuine complications-for example, getting evidence from someone with mental health problems is a nightmare.
I expect that some of the delays were caused deliberately by the employee, or her advisers. Not least because she had no protection from Unfair Dismissal until she had 2 years' service. That and she would have been receiving full pay while not having to do any work (her loss of earnings will relate to overtime and lack of pay rise etc).
It took a year to have a disciplinary hearing. But the outcome was abundantly clear. The allegations were not upheld. Forget the "lack of evidence" bit. They were not upheld. And the COO seems to have taken it upon himself not to communicate this to the employee. Not to reinstate her. And to hold some sort of secret appeal to which only he was privy. Where he is Judge and Jury. And no-one gets to give evidence. That is not the way these things work. And whoever was in charge of HR appears to have lacked a spine to tell him that. You cannot "subsequently review" anything. That is the "double jeopardy" bit
Then we have the nonsense about the police involvement. At no time has she been charged with anything. I do not believe there was any reason why she should not be working at the same place of work. But, in the unlikely event that was not deemed appropriate, this is a large employer. With multiple hospitals and other places of work. She was clearly suspended without any cause (never mind a good cause) since the Disciplinary Hearing.
A Grievance doesn't have to be called that to be one. I have every confidence she complained on advice, and was secretly delighted that she was ignored. Which is no way to run a business. If someone is accused of doing something terrible, it is vital to be able to show that the Employer is seeking to ensure that an innocent person will be able to return to work.
I doubt she will get a large amount of money. The biggest waste was the extra 14 months pay she received without having to work.
If that matter was in a normal business, heads would roll. But it is only taxpayers' money...
I am presuming that she was suspended, and not working when the poor man died.
If the police were investigating his death, it could surely have nothing to do with her case.
And, in the unlikely event that was not the case (causes of death in this sort of case can be complex and/or long drawn out), even an employer as thick as this one just might have used that as a reason to suspend and/or dismiss, either at the time or at Tribunal.
Often difficult to ascertain Judge's reasoning from a newspaper article. In this particular instance, I get the distinct impression he disliked both sides
Wouldnt disagree.