Planetarion Forums - GF forced to quit job, advice needed.

SilverSmoke · 13 Oct 2005, 18:01

Well, we'll visit a legal advice desk to see what our options are, I hope you aren't right Yahwe. I don't see why something like this can be subscribed as fraude but I realise you are the one who should know..

Tomkat · 13 Oct 2005, 18:21

I can't believe SS is still dating a dirty thieving fraudulent criminal.

Paisley · 13 Oct 2005, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

well they're not.
UNSURPRISINGLY you're allowed to sack people who committ crimes against you without needing to first write them a stern letter
i'm not going to ****ing pm you my cv just to get you to stop typing crap.
this girl has no legal options. AS I STATED BEFORE: she is very lucky that they didn't prosecute her.
paying my colleagues money is not going to change these facts.

You would think it was that simple... There was a reason why I asked you what country you are from/are practising law. Different Countries have different Laws :eek:

Speaking as a branch manager of a known Off license, I have to phone a consultant of Croner (a well known firm in the Uk that Specialises in UK employment law) Before I can sack one of my members of staff for stealing from the till (don't need to be a lawyer to know that that constitutes as a crime) Time I could spend doing paperwork or seeing to my shop floor.
Even when you have overhelming evidence of them stealing.

And before that I have to have a investigatory meeting with them to establish what has happened. Even then I can only suspend them on full pay If I decide to do so, And then I have to give it to them in writing why I am suspending them and also in writing why I am having a displinary meeting and I have to give them 3 days notice of the displinary hearing, and inform them that they have a right to have representation wether it be a fellow employee or a trade union representative. On the day of the meeting I must have another branch manager or similar (not my boss) to witness and take notes of every detail (evidence gathered and/or what was said in the meeting)

And when I do decide to fire them I have to inform them that they have a right of appeal against my decision.

Because the one time I didn't follow that exact prodecure (1 month in the job) the staff member did raise a claim of unfair dismissal against the firm and as a result of a settlement between my staff member and Corner, (from the nice lawyer from the phone) I had to re-instate him. Even tho I had the evidence to sack him "beyond reasonable" doubt" according to this lawyer.

So I am speaking from bitter experience..

Yahwe · 13 Oct 2005, 18:37

Croners are a consultancy firm.

You should have asked a lawyer.

Paisley · 13 Oct 2005, 18:41

They are lawyers...

Black Dog · 13 Oct 2005, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

You would think it was that simple... There was a reason why I asked you what country you are from/are practising law. Different Countries have different Laws

Please tell me which countries allow workers who have committed an attempted fraud to get compensation when they are dismissed?

Paisley · 13 Oct 2005, 19:08

Not sure about attempted fraud, (I am glad Sliversmoke is seeking advice) but apparently with stealing from the till the UK does...

Yahwe · 13 Oct 2005, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

Not sure about attempted fraud, (I am glad Sliversmoke is seeking advice) but apparently with stealing from the till the UK does...

no it doesn't

EDIT: Actually time for a little experiment I've been wanting to try out for a while.

Now you are just an average chap. You run an off licence. Basic education at best. Now it is people like you that are most vulnerable to paranoia over the law.

We see it in all sorts of situations; so with due and dilligent thought I devised what I like to call The "or what?" Test

Clearly not every citizen can be taught every nuance of the legal system: but it must be a citizen's right to understand the legal system which governs him. The "or what?" test is my solution.

It's very simple. When ever you come accross something which you believe that you have to do because 'the law tells you to' you apply the "or what?" test.

So in your case a bunch of jumped up consultants (possibly with a tame inhouse lawyer) told you "the law says you must do X Y & Z" simply ask the question "or what?" to each of these stages.

The answer by the way once the whole test is completed is that the worst that could happen (if you didn't do all the X Y & Z stuff and you just sacked the employee on the spot) is that you might be taken to an industrial tribunal where you would win and the sacked employee would have to pay the firm's legal costs.

The "or what?" Test My answer to legal ignorance.

Cannon_Fodder · 13 Oct 2005, 19:23

why are they saying its fraud, did they not check each slip/receipt etc in the first place? or do they just add the amounts on each one and just pay her?

Yahwe · 13 Oct 2005, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniborp

why are they saying its fraud, did they not check each slip/receipt etc in the first place? or do they just add the amounts on each one and just pay her?

Fraud and attempted Fraud carry the same penalty.

Cannon_Fodder · 13 Oct 2005, 19:28

What i mean is, its not like she added all her transport costs, then added those other costs, and gave the company a bill for the total amount. Why didnt the company check them?

Paisley · 13 Oct 2005, 19:35

Ok last reply I put in this thread... My former member of staff got off on a technicality,
Because I didn't follow the exact procedure, due to my inexperience/lack of training at the time. If I did follow it to the letter at the time, he would have been on the brew (jobless) as they say in Scotland. No industrial tribuneral would be nessesary.

Clearly guilty as sin but he got away with it because of the technicality.
He wasn't contesting that he was stealing, It was that his dismissal was unfair.
All because I did not inform (not intentionally I may add) him of he could have representation at his disciplinary.

Good luck Silversmoke.

Dead_Meat · 13 Oct 2005, 20:08

Why all the fuss? (Haven't read the whole thing)

Didn't she submit expenses that were wrong and contained personal expenses?

OK, so she's been a bit hard done by and it all seems a little heavy-handed, but all this 'Oh wow, that's so wrong, she should sue' is completely pointless.

It's not like she didn't do anything wrong, is it?

Dead_Meat · 13 Oct 2005, 20:24

I live in America, I am not American. Do NOT confuse the two.

sigrid · 13 Oct 2005, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Sorry to be a lawyer and ruin all the exciting ideas with that boring old thing called 'reality' but legally she hasn't got a leg to stand on and she should count herself lucky that they didn't prosecute her for 'fraud'. Because if they did she'd never work again.

Sorry to be a police-officer, but as you said to me before Yahwe, you refer to english law and i believe Silversmoke is dutch. Under dutch criminal law the boss doesnot have a leg to stand on and hell freezes over before she gets prosecuted for doing this without intention. I bet you dont even know how the payment in dutch public transport works. Trust me, its the easiest way to get mixed up with declarations ever.

Also, IF they would go to the police, she has to actually be convicted before she would get a criminal record that matters for any future jobs.

Yahwe · 13 Oct 2005, 20:37

Police Officers are always ignorant of the law, i expect you are no exception.

sigrid · 13 Oct 2005, 20:43

In holland its the department of Justice that screws up, not the police

SilverSmoke · 13 Oct 2005, 20:51

I remember my ex girlfriend once got followed by a police patrouille van for about 15 minutes, with minimal space between bumpers.

After 15 minutes my ex made a 'weird' movement and as a result of this she had to stop. Some dyke of a cop (a female) walked out asked in a quasi strict manner 'what is wrong with you little lady, you seem to be nervous'.

I rolled my eyes and told the fat pig that it probably hasn't got anything to do with a police car following her for about a quarter of an hour. She mumbled some retarded stuff and in the meanwhile I saw her partner (a male cop) being emberassed.

Tell me, how do they select those female officers in our beloved country? They get subsidy for balancing the male/female ratio or something?

(sorry couldn't resist, wanted to ask this one time in my life to a member of the dutch police force)

Nodrog · 13 Oct 2005, 20:56

I remember one day my girlfriend was walking down the street and then she saw a police woman who said to my girlfriend "Hi can I have a quick word". So then my girlfriend said "ok" and the police woman looked at my girlfriend and then she asked my girlfriend "I was just wondering what time it was, do you know?". Then my girlfriend checked her watch and said "its 10 past 4" and the police woman said thanks to my girlfriend and my girlfriend smiled and said "ok" and then she (my girlfriend) continued walking down the street.

SilverSmoke · 13 Oct 2005, 21:09

oh shut up you clown

Another one

About a year ago I came out of the office and I passed the street towards the central train station of the town I worked in to get to the bus stop. Because I was in a hurry, didn't feel like missing the bus as I would have had to wait for 30 minutes, I walked through a red stop light. I walked, I repeat. Another person felt like doing the same as it seems she didn't feel like waiting 30 minutes as well. Considering there wasn't a car on the lane for miles we both decided to ignore the red light. So we walked across the street ignoring a ****ing traffic light that didn't have a purpose at all at that moment. While we where almost across the street we got called by a big female cop and her male compagnion. We were in the wrong and she was about to write tickets for the both of us. It's said to be about 45 euro for this crime. Because my partner in crime started to yell at the pig of a cop who seemed to have the vocabulary of a 12 year old farmerboy the focus was gone from me and I could escape punishment of my crime.

This kind of stuff makes me angry, and you pigs keep on wondering why the average joe in the street dislike you 'ppl'. Especially when you know that behind that said station (the scenery i describe was in front) there is a park where lowlifes sell harddrugs to hobos all day long and I would know as I walked through that park on a daily base.

Vaio · 13 Oct 2005, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I remember one day my girlfriend was walking down the street and then she saw a police woman who said to my girlfriend "Hi can I have a quick word". So then my girlfriend said "ok" and the police woman looked at my girlfriend and then she asked my girlfriend "I was just wondering what time it was, do you know?". Then my girlfriend checked her watch and said "its 10 past 4" and the police woman said thanks to my girlfriend and my girlfriend smiled and said "ok" and then she (my girlfriend) continued walking down the street.

Nodrog had a girlfriend............

Tomkat · 13 Oct 2005, 22:34

Look SS stop feeling so hard done by and get the girl another job.

"Life isn't fair etc"

Deal with it.

She should have been more careful getting claims off the business. I wouldn't think of submitting travel claims to where I work for places I didn't go with the school - I'd check.

JonnyBGood · 13 Oct 2005, 22:36

I think we all know what we're really missing here.

Arson that's what.

Stew · 13 Oct 2005, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomkat

She should have been more careful....

..before starting to go out with a guy who is clearly never going to love her in that way.

Stew · 13 Oct 2005, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think we all know what we're really missing here.

Arson that's what.

What? No cement?

Arachnidman · 13 Oct 2005, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Where and what are you lawyering at the moment?

Since you always seem to know a lot more than me, I might pick your brains for some advice when I get around to thinking about horrible things like careers.

I'm a brain surgeon. Anyone want an IQ boost? PM me or see me in #forums.

Do not pester me for credentials, for I need not produce them online. Pretending to be more successful than I really am is easy online you see.

Black Dog · 13 Oct 2005, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arachnidman

I'm a brain surgeon. Anyone want an IQ boost? PM me or see me in #forums.

Do not pester me for credentials, for I need not produce them online. Pretending to be more successful than I really am is easy online you see.

If I change my mind and want to become a brain surgeon then I'll be sure to speak to you

JonnyBGood · 13 Oct 2005, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arachnidman

I'm a brain surgeon. Anyone want an IQ boost? PM me or see me in #forums.

Do not pester me for credentials, for I need not produce them online. Pretending to be more successful than I really am is easy online you see.

I'm not sure if you're 15 or 35. A large number of people on GD have met yahwe and know that he's a qualified lawyer.

SilverSmoke · 13 Oct 2005, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arachnidman

I'm a brain surgeon. Anyone want an IQ boost? PM me or see me in #forums.

Do not pester me for credentials, for I need not produce them online. Pretending to be more successful than I really am is easy online you see.

What's the deal with this anyway? When someone claims to be a lawyer or any other kind of academic a lot of people take it for granded it's lie and must be impossible.

Like if there aren't hundreds of thousands in this world, like they're some kind of unreachable special specie.

Paisley · 13 Oct 2005, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no it doesn't
EDIT: Actually time for a little experiment I've been wanting to try out for a while.
We see it in all sorts of situations; so with due and dilligent thought I devised what I like to call The "or what?" Test
Clearly not every citizen can be taught every nuance of the legal system: but it must be a citizen's right to understand the legal system which governs him. The "or what?" test is my solution.
It's very simple. When ever you come accross something which you believe that you have to do because 'the law tells you to' you apply the "or what?" test.
So in your case a bunch of jumped up consultants (possibly with a tame inhouse lawyer) told you "the law says you must do X Y & Z" simply ask the question "or what?" to each of these stages.
The answer by the way once the whole test is completed is that the worst that could happen (if you didn't do all the X Y & Z stuff and you just sacked the employee on the spot) is that you might be taken to an industrial tribunal where you would win and the sacked employee would have to pay the firm's legal costs.
The "or what?" Test My answer to legal ignorance.

Right I was gonna leave this post be...Till I read that. Think I will play a game, Its called lets get a straight answer from a Lawyer:eek: . You never said what country you are from... I am from Scotland now that wasn't too hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i'm not going to ****ing pm you my cv just to get you to stop typing crap.

An attitude like that I wouldn't give you a job, Not a peoples person I see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Police Officers are always ignorant of the law, i expect you are no exception.

At least sigrid is in the Right country, Your legal employment options are limited in scotland let alone Holland. Dutch Law is different to English law, Just ask any hash smoker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Croners are a consultancy firm.
You should have asked a lawyer..

Consultants, Lawyers, solicitors, Bunch of B&*$%!Ds...same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Now you are just an average chap. You run an off licence. Basic education at best. Now it is people like you that are most vulnerable to paranoia over the law.

Not everyone is cut out to be a B%$&%$D, what can I say.
HND in business managment, would consider going for a degree If I could lose the wage and goto uni full time.
I couldn't give a 2 fingered salute about being paranoid about with the law.
I know how to keep a license and how to hire and fire staff. I am happy with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Sorry to be a lawyer and ruin all the exciting ideas with that boring old thing called 'reality' but legally she hasn't got a leg to stand on and she should count herself lucky that they didn't prosecute her for 'fraud'. Because if they did she'd never work again.

You aint got a Dutch law degree and you don't specialise in employment law...
Away back to selling your houses and stop kidding on you are a QC pal.

Edit whoever put this in as a negitive rep...
you can't even spell and you're disagreeing with yahwe

Have the bottle to sign it so I may Neg rep you when you are prone to a few typos.

Black Dog · 13 Oct 2005, 23:22

Imagine a legal system that allows you to sue your emloyer when you were dismissed from the work because you did something wrong.

There isn't one. That's because it would be bloody stupid. Do you see where you're going wrong here?

Dace · 13 Oct 2005, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

I just told her that, about the intimidation thing but it seems she doesn't care or hasn't got the balls to do something about it which annoy me as much as the entire situation

grr

SilverSmoke in "i wish my sexual partner had balls" non shocker!*

*!!! lawl you're a fag !!!

Paisley · 13 Oct 2005, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Imagine a legal system that allows you to sue your emloyer when you were dismissed from the work because you did something wrong.

There isn't one. That's because it would be bloody stupid. Do you see where you're going wrong here?

Sadly my ex minion got away on a technicality

Bar that I do agree with you.

Yahwe · 14 Oct 2005, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arachnidman

I'm a brain surgeon. Anyone want an IQ boost? PM me or see me in #forums.

Do not pester me for credentials, for I need not produce them online. Pretending to be more successful than I really am is easy online you see.

darling this is very sweet satire but the problem is that these people know me.

I was typing back and forth to blackdog years ago when i was still in college.

i'm not just GD's resident Barrister, i'm one of the 'GD Truman Show'

JonnyBGood · 14 Oct 2005, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

darling this is very sweet satire but the problem is that these people know me.

I was typing back and forth to blackdog years ago when i was still in college.

i'm not just GD's resident Barrister, i'm one of the 'GD Truman Show'

Or maybe you're just saying that because you're a cheating lying lawyer

Yahwe · 14 Oct 2005, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Or maybe you're just saying that because you're a cheating lying lawyer

you're too pissed to have an opinion

JonnyBGood · 14 Oct 2005, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you're too pissed to have an opinion

You should hear me pontificate on the moral ramifications of asexual reproduction among sentient aliens.

Demon Dave · 14 Oct 2005, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i am a lawyer

i thought you didn't like to be tarnished as a lawyer?

Yahwe · 14 Oct 2005, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

i thought you didn't like to be tarnished as a lawyer?

they had geoffrey robinson QC on the bbc tonight and they put 'lawyer' under his name.

if the general public have fallen so ignorant that they need to be reminded what a QC is then who am i to fight it?

Paisley · 14 Oct 2005, 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

they had geoffrey robinson QC on the bbc tonight and they put 'lawyer' under his name.
If the general public have fallen so ignorant that they need to be reminded what a QC is then who am i to fight it?

A doctor...aye
A minister/priest...aye
A Lawyer...Who gives a fk

I don't hold lawyers in high esteem.

Yahwe · 14 Oct 2005, 01:07

luckily no one cares what you think

Nadar · 14 Oct 2005, 01:08

Did she have a written contract? In Norway it works like this: Workers who doesn't have written contracts can be fired instantly. She does have a contract, right? If she does, I'm sure she can claim at least some kind of compensation from them.

Paisley · 14 Oct 2005, 01:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Or maybe you're just saying that because you're a cheating lying lawyer

Speaks for itself Yahwe.

Tomkat · 14 Oct 2005, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

Like if there aren't hundreds of thousands in this world, like they're some kind of unreachable special specie.

Hot damn - If there's one thing this world needs, it's more lawyers.

SilverSmoke · 14 Oct 2005, 12:43

She has a contract of indefinite term, as it's called in Holland sort of.

We've been contacting some bodies and got adviced to reject the previous resignation with the reason she has been intimidated. I do recall what Yahwe said that she is lucky she hasn't been proscecuted but over here it seems different according to people in the know of Dutch laws in this field.

Every person/body we contacted said the same. This isn't fraud, making a mistake isn't fraud. They didn't gave her the option of defending/explaining herself. At the moment she's on her way to a legal advice desk to write a letter of objection towards her employee in where she states to be available for labour again.

Nadar · 14 Oct 2005, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantoz

But on the other hand you are obliged to have a contract, so that's essentially a moot point.
But I am well aware that many employers don't give a damn about this, and refuses to provide any contracts. I know quite a lot of people wokring in the bar/pub/nght club/coffee shop-industry, and not a single one of them has a contract.

I had a summer job in a pub once for 2 months and I didn't bother getting a contract as the work was just short-term anyway. But I know I should have, just in case.

Dante Hicks · 14 Oct 2005, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Imagine a legal system that allows you to sue your emloyer when you were dismissed from the work because you did something wrong.

This is silly. "Doing something wrong" isn't a particularly meaningful way of categorising behaviour. Making someone tea with too many sugars is doing something wrong, but it's hardly a dismissable offence is it?

JonnyBGood · 14 Oct 2005, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is silly. "Doing something wrong" isn't a particularly meaningful way of categorising behaviour. Making someone tea with too many sugars is doing something wrong, but it's hardly a dismissable offence is it?

Clearly you're not a tea drinker dante

acropolis · 14 Oct 2005, 13:47

I'm all in favor of firing people for no good reason whatever, but I'm interested in seeing a definition (legal or otherwise) that doesn't involve intent:

(web definitions for) Fraud:
1. intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
2. something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
3. An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice or device resorted to with intent to deprive another of property or other right.
4. encompasses an array of irregularities and illegal acts characterized by intentional deception. (280.01.1)
5. The intentional and successful employment of cunning, deception, collusion; or artifice used to cheat or deceive another person whereby that person acts upon it to the loss of his property and to his legal injury.
6. False and deceptive statement of fact intended to induce another person to rely upon and, in reliance thereof, give up a valuable thing he or she owns or a legal right he or she is entitled to. ...
7. A deception, intended to wrongfully obtain money or property from the reliance of another on the deceptive statements or acts, believing them to be true.
8. The intentional perversion of the truth in order to mislead someone into parting with something of value.
9. Intentional lying or concealment by policyholders to obtain payment of an insurance claim that would otherwise not be paid, or lying or misrepresentation by the insurance company managers, employees, agents, and brokers for financial gain.
10. any deception, lie, or dishonest statement make with the intent to cheat someone.
11. An act of misrepresentation in the intent to delude.
12. A fraud is an intentional deception perpetrated to secure an unfair gain. Financial fraud, that is, a deception practiced on another party to cheat them out of money, is the most commonly discussed type of fraud. The term "research fraud" or "scientific fraud" is also used to mean an intentional deception about scientific results, a type of research misconduct. ...

and so on.

Yahwe · 14 Oct 2005, 17:47

The question is proving intent. Watch this:

Prosecutor: Now Mrs SS these bus tickets, you buy one for several journeys is that correct?
Mrs SS: Yes
P: And the conductor he punches through one of these little tags per journey does he?
SS: Yes
P: now you used these bus tickets to get to work didn't you?
SS: Yes
P: And you know that your employers will reimburse you for those journeys?
SS: Yes
P: Why you probably thought that was a perk of the job? (smiling)
SS: Yes (laughing)
P: And you also use the Bus for private journeys is that true?
SS: Yes
P: But you would use the same ticket for private journeys that you would use for work journeys?
SS: Yes ... I ...
P: You must have known that that would cause problems when you claimed reimbursement didn't you?
SS: No ... I ...
P: You didn't know that having private journeys on the same ticket would cause confusion?
SS: no...
P: But Mrs SS how do you prove to the company how many journeys you have taken?
SS: You send in the Tickets... but..
P: Precisely Mrs SS you send in the tickets so surely you must have known that problems would be caused?
SS: Yes I did... but I
P: And any confusion that caused would result in the company paying for all your private bus journeys wouldn't it?
SS: Well Yes
P: how much did you earn in this job Mrs SS?
SS: £xx
P: So very private travel would have been quite a luxury to you wouldn't it?
SS:well yes
P: Isn't that what you wanted Mrs SS? An extra Bonus to your salary?
SS: No... I .... It was a mistake
P: A mistake? And how many times before have you made this mistake?
SS: I don't know... I
P: Look at these tickets Mrs SS! It's not just one time that you made this mistake is it Mrs SS? Look at this ticket dated XXXXXX and this one dated XXXXXX and this one and this one! Are they all mistakes?
SS: Yes!
P: Mrs SS the truth of this matter is that like the employee who steals pens from the stationary cupboard you knew what you were doing and you thought it was such a small offence that no one would notice didn't you?
SS: No
P: Mrs SS you knew that it would cause confusion if you took private and work journeys on the same ticket?
SS: Yes
P:You knew that there were private journeys on those tickets when you submitted them
SS: Yes but I forgot
P: You knew that the result of that confusion would be free private travel for you,
SS: I ...
P: The real truth Mrs SS is that you intended to fraudulently gain from submitting those tickets didn't you?
SS: No... I
P: And the only 'mistake' Mrs SS is the fact that you got caught! isn't it?
SS: no....
P: No further Questions.

see?