On 30 Jul, 16:45, MIG wrote:
On 30 Jul, 16:33, John B wrote:





On Jul 30, 4:11 pm, MIG wrote:

There seem to be no facts available at all about LU's reason for
sacking the member of staff, and no description of any assault by the
member of staff.
[...]
The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be
assumed to be a criminal".

No: if I thought the chap in question was necessarily a criminal, I'd
suggest that he should be taken to court.

LU has the kind of rigorous and fair staff discipline process that
you'd expect in a heavily unionised, public sector industry, with
strong staff representation at all stages. It's not as if this case
had taken place last week and the CSA had been booted out on the spot
- rather, there has been a lengthy and detailed investigation since
the incident took place in Jannuary, with union representation at all
stages.

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...

I still can't find any information about this at all. *We assume that
the sacking was carried out after an investigation by the right sort
of chaps, and we know that it is opposed by the wrong sort of chaps.

Therefore ... what? *(Apart from an excuse for more gratuitous abuse
of the RMT.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quite......32 posts here discussing pure heresay.