The price of lying

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Former employer.

Why was she sacked from her last job?

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Well it's quite clear the article is suggesting it was a false claim, if it is going to court there's only so much they can put in the article until a verdict is given.



That part is key and it will be easy to clarify with the employer what reference her former player gave.

How can it go to court?

 

[Metalartin]

How can it go to court?

Her partner and/or family members would have a good case to get some justice for her(wont bring her back and probably just a slap on the wrist in fairness) I would have thought or can former employers scupper employment opportunities with unsubstantiated claims as they please these days?

 

[SWP's back]

Why was she sacked from her last job?

Who says she was sacked?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I think it's quite obvious who it was addressed to:


So she was due to get a job in management but was rejected because her ex employers wrongly said she had been sacked for 'gross negligence' and then after failing to get yet another job wrote that suicide note. I'm not too sure of what gross negligence covers maybe someone else can clarify but if fraud comes under that then it's pretty safe to assume it is all related and if they were unable to prove their claims of gross negligence/fraud they had no right giving that reference.

All pure speculation I'm afraid.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Her partner and/or family members would have a good case to get some justice for her(wont bring her back and probably just a slap on the wrist in fairness) I would have thought or can former employers scupper employment opportunities with unsubstantiated claims as they please these days?

Did they sack her for gross misconduct or not?

 

[Metalartin]

Did they sack her for gross misconduct or not?

If it is the what the fraud investigation was about where they were yet to find any evidence to prove it... so surely they cannot legally state that as the reason she was sacked. From the sounds of it they sacked someone without any evidence of the claims of misconduct, she was planning to contest the claims.

They may have believed so but they were yet to prove it, so they were wrong to state it. Otherwise you could have disgruntled ex-employers make whatever claims they like and not have to prove a damn thing, it cannot be legal.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

If it is the what the fraud investigation was about where they were yet to find any evidence to prove it... then surely they cannot legally state that as the reason she was sacked. They may have believed so but they were yet to prove it, so they were wrong to state it. Otherwise you could make whatever claims you like and not have to prove a damn thing, it cannot be legal.

Going round in circles. If they sacked her because they felt they had grounds that there was gross misconduct, then her reference will say that she was sacked for gross misconduct.

 

[Metalartin]

Going round in circles. If they sacked her because they felt they had grounds that there was gross misconduct, then her reference will say that she was sacked for gross misconduct.

They had no proof of it though, all they are allowed to disclose was she was sacked... there has to be laws on this surely. They can sack whoever they want but they cannot accuse someone of fraud/gross misconduct without proof, which sounds like what has happened. She should have really contested it straight away is my only thought, not sure how much that would cost or whether she could prove her innocence though.

There is speculation in that yes but surely you can see the wrong in that if that is indeed what has happened? It sounds like you're trying to say this is fine which leads me to think you haven't thought about it from a moral standpoint.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

They had no proof of it though, all they are allowed to disclose was she was sacked... there has to be laws on this surely. They can sack whoever they want but they cannot accuse someone of fraud/gross misconduct without proof, which sounds like what has happened. There is speculation in that yes but surely you can see the wrong in that if that is indeed what has happened? It sounds like you're trying to say this is fine which leads me to think you have questionable morals.

That last bit is out of order and you can apologise if you like. I am saying no such thing