Monday 19 November 2012

Gosh, I Wonder Why She Didn’t Turn Up To Fight Her Corner?

A hairdresser has failed in a bid to force her former employers to pay her wageswhile she was in jail.
Miss Atkins' claims of constructive dismissal were thrown out by chairman Victoria Wallace on Tuesday at Ashford Employment Tribunal after she failed to turn up for the hearing, despite staff trying to contact her.
Ah. Not because they were patently absurd, then? Oh, well…
In written statements made to the tribunal, both Miss Atkins and her-ex boss said she took annual leave to attend her trial in December last year.
When she was found guilty at Canterbury Crown Court, Judge Adele Williams said Atkins had perpetrated a "dreadful crime".
But documents submitted to the tribunal show that Miss Atkins claimed her employer made assurances her job was safe before she was convicted.
Why would an employer say such a thing?
"I came home on June 27, 2012, and rang Mrs McDonald to ask if I could come back to work and the reply to that was 'no'."
Miss Atkins claimed in her statement she was thus owed backdated salary for the days missed while she was in jail.
She said: "I would like nine months' worth of wages, which is how long I was in prison for – as I thought I still had a job – which comes to £7,000."
Yes, I'm sure you would. I’d like a pony.
But Mrs McDonald said there was no agreement to keep a job open and that her business was stigmatised by her worker's conviction.
And, since ‘This Is Kent’ hasn't seen fit to mention what it was she was convicted of, we have to turn to Google (and thereafter ‘The Mirror’) for the details:
“My heart was pounding,” says Wayne.
“I was thinking maybe I was to be kept in custody until my trial. I asked the ¬policeman guarding me, he said he didn't know.
“Half an hour went by. Then another officer came down. He told me I was being released without charge because new evidence had come to light. As it sank in the relief swept over me.
“I went home to hugs from my ¬family. That evening an officer called me to explain what had happened.
"Police had learned that the night before Kelly had left her handbag in a pub and it had been handed in to a member of staff. It was the bag she said I’d stolen.
“Apparently, she’d reported being mugged for her handbag before she’d added that she’d also been raped.
"That was why the police were fairly sure she was lying. Days later I was told she’d been charged with perverting the course of justice, which she denied.”
Yup, she’s a false rape claimant. And false mugging claimant into the bargain. Failing at both  luckily enough  No real surprise she didn't try to shoot for ‘best of three’ then….

And I wonder who encouraged her claim to the Employment Tribunal?


Anonymous said...

And I wonder who encouraged her claim to the Employment Tribunal?

No doubt the same parasites who will be 'helping' that bearded fuckwit Abu Katarda to try and claim £10m compo for being banged up - matters not to them, win or lose, they get the taxpayer's money all the time.

DJ said...

Don't worry, the important thing is that the Arnold Rimmers in the Tribunal industry have had another chance to ram home who's boss to some uppity some business owner loser.

Hell, the more ludicrous the claim the better, just to ram home that it's actually their business and the nominal 'owner' is just running it.

Surreptitious Evil said...

This boggles the mind (although the Tribunal got it right.)

1. It cannot be constructive dismissal. Simples. That is where conditions are made intolerable for you and you quit.

2. It isn't unlawful dismissal - being banged up isn't one of the statutory categories.

3. It might (if one were daft enough to believe the lying toe-rag) be unfair dismissal but the damn site gives being banged up as an example "substantial reason" why dismissal would be fair.

4. Even it were unfair, the remedy she asked for is insane. The most she would get would be reinstated and compo for loss of earnings during the period where she was available for employment - not while she was inside. And, even then, by being banged up for being a lying toe-rag, it is likely she would have any award reduced for her contributory actions.

Ranter: probably the benefits people. I've certainly seen people encouraged to put in an ET claim so they move on to immediate benefits.

DJ: Err, what?

jaded said...

The strange thing is these women that claim to have been raped normally look like a bulldog licking piss off a thistle,but this one's extremely attractive.Some man is going to get very lucky,sorry unlucky very soon.

Anonymous said...


The other option is that this woman has actually realised how monumentally stupid she has been and as a first step has stayed away from this not quite as monumentally stupid and not quite as evil course of action. Somehow I don't hold much hope out in the matter but one can but hope.

Robert Edwards said...

I have asked before and I ask again; where on earth do you get all this?

JuliaM said...

"Don't worry, the important thing is that the Arnold Rimmers in the Tribunal industry have had another chance to ram home who's boss to some uppity some business owner loser. "

Indeed... :(

"...(although the Tribunal got it right.)"

Did they? We don't know how they'd have ruled if she'd have turned up!

"Somehow I don't hold much hope out in the matter..."

Me neither.

"..where on earth do you get all this?"

Local newspapers!

John Pickworth said...

If there's any justice left in this world; she'd be sent a bill for her recent accommodation.