On Jul 30, 4:33 pm, John B wrote:
This procedure concluded that the actions of the staff member in
question were sufficiently in breach of LU's policy to warrant
dismissal for gross misconduct. To me, that puts the balance of proof
that the staff member did not commit gross misconduct *strongly* in
the court of the people who believe otherwise...

No doubt like most companies the rules for gross misconduct are vague
and open to interpretation however is expedient at the time. Probably
theres some clauses in there about "bringing LUL into disrepute" or
"altercation with a passenger" or similar catch all phrases that don't
take into account being nutted by a psycho and having to defend
yourself while doing your job.

B2003

On Jul 30, 4:45 pm, wrote:
This procedure concluded that the actions of the staff member in
question were sufficiently in breach of LU's policy to warrant
dismissal for gross misconduct. To me, that puts the balance of proof
that the staff member did not commit gross misconduct *strongly* in
the court of the people who believe otherwise...

No doubt like most companies the rules for gross misconduct are vague
and open to interpretation however is expedient at the time. Probably
theres some clauses in there about "bringing LUL into disrepute" or
"altercation with a passenger" or similar catch all phrases that don't
take into account being nutted by a psycho and having to defend
yourself while doing your job.

Right, yeah. And the reason why LU thinks that this incident brought
them into disrepute, despite the fact that the CSA in question was
acting perfectly reasonably at the time and it was all a stitch-up-
honest-guvna, was what precisely?

I mean, if the chap in question had been accused of attacking
$FAMOUS_PERSON, or indeed had made a complaint at all rather than
disappearing, or if there was any reason at all for LU to favour the
customer over the staff member, then I'd be equally cynical.

But given that LU derives no conceivable benefit from not following
(or 'bending to negative interpretation') its own rules in this case,
whereas the sacked chap obviously has a lot to gain from being
misleading about the situation, this is an occasion where my cynicism
definitely leads me in favour of LU and not of sacked chap...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Jul 31, 12:32 am, John B wrote:
Right, yeah. And the reason why LU thinks that this incident brought

Yes, right. And if you had a proper job instead of "freelancing" you'd
know about dismissal rules.

B2003