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.
Options
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
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/common-practice-to-take-leftovers-says-cleaner-sacked-over-tuna-sandwich/ar-BB1iBv8J?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=33e491f9c8094eadac5ace0d8609db94&ei=24
Common to be summarily dismissed for this? Yes.
This has nothing to do with the firm of Solicitors, simply because they (quite understandably) don't see this as important.
People in this cleaner's position are always told quite clearly that they will be dismissed if they do this. Simply because, from the employer's perspective, a line has to be drawn.
The employer doesn't want the blurred lines and uncertainty. When is a sandwich fair game to steal? Who gets to decide? Out of the fridge, in the fridge, in date, out of date, when the person can still come back from a break to eat "their" sandwich?
Employers who are contract cleaners don't want all that risk. So they always say-don't eat/take anything that is not yours. Or we will sack you.
“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.”
The Contract Cleaners and the Client usually have totally different positions on this. Not least because 1 of them is risking losing a valuable contract. And the other is not.
Quite why rent-a-mob have started hassling the Client instead of the Employer shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the protestors.
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?
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.
In order to make a profit they cut costs where they can.
So-for example-they don't want all the administrative hassle of trying to work out generalised rules for when something should be considered theft or not. Nor do they want the occasional lawsuit from someone getting food poisoning because 1 of the original workforce wasn't very good at washing his hands.
So. Simple rule. No-one decides to eat stuff that doesn't belong to them without express permission. Or Summary Dismissal.
That way you don't get into endless arguments with people whining about what is, or is not, harsh. And make a profit.
Although in this case they will incur legal costs from the Tribunal that is the result.
For me, eating leftovers from a group lunch is not the same as helping yourself to something not left out to be binned. Eating some sandwiches before they are binned is not an indicator of a cleaner stealing other items. This seems a bit heavy handed by the law firm and the contractors.
People with strong cases go to Tribunals and threaten bad publicity to try and force an offer.
People with weak cases try and force money via bad publicity.
There was (provided the contract was professionally drafted) a Lawful Instruction. With a clear penalty for failing to abide by it-Summary Dismissal. From there, just have to follow correct procedure re the Disciplinary Hearing. And any Tribunal proceedings, if they go the distance, are doomed to fail.
I'm not saying that will definitely happen. What I am saying is that is what has happened every single time when I have been there.
The legal costs may well mean that the Employer will make an offer. While simultaneously trying to get any case thrown out for being wholly without merit.
I dont know who has generated the publicity.
I would suspect that it was her union.
They seem very keen on taking her case to the Tribunal.
I would be interested to know how her employers found out.
It seems like a mountain out of a molehill.
Its a lot of nonsense over a discarded sandwich.
My money would be on a work colleague cautioning against it, and employee giving the sort of arrogant response that led to someone reporting them. But, equally, it could have been covert surveillance by an employer wanting to get rid.
Incidentally, in all my years giving advice on this sort of stuff, I never told an Employer what to do. I gave them a range of options as to what they could do. That's why I expect that the Employer chose to get rid.
Anyone who thinks this isn't a case where dismissal isn't an option has never worked for or advised a contract caterers. Everyone knows you don't take without asking, or you are running a big risk. It is standard for that particular industry.
At the end of every meeting any surplus sandwiches were removed to the break room.
Sometimes this was done by the cleaners.
Where they were consumed by members of staff.
This was common practice, and they werent invited on every occasion to eat them.
It was just accepted.
What sort of idiot would you have to be, to prohibit your staff from eating the leftovers, and then throw them in the bin.
I dont know who has generated the publicity.
I would suspect that it was her union.
They seem very keen on taking her case to the Tribunal.
I would be interested to know how her employers found out.
It seems like a mountain out of a molehill.
Its a lot of nonsense over a discarded sandwich.
If it had been a Beef sandwich they probably wouldn't have known something Fishy was going on.
The whole thing seems ridiculous to me.
The advice I would have given the employer is as follows.
In any disciplinary process, it is necessary to follow a fair procedure and, if the matter is proved, for a decision to be within the range of reasonable responses. This action will be expressly stated as 1 that can merit summary dismissal. That does not mean you have to dismiss. Consider what value this employee has for you. Will disciplinary action short of dismissal result in a worthwhile employee, or not? At the end of the process, will you have an employee worth keeping, or is this an opportunity to rid yourself of an underperforming, or problematic, employee?
The employer then uses common sense. To move forward in the best way for its own business aims.
Your position is the 1 without context. Or, indeed, common sense.
Particularly when the Solicitors were happy for her to continue to work there.