Sunday, September 23, 2007

Company confirms, Council denies

The following is a confirmation by email to the dismissed man mentioned in the previous post from the company that fired him that they did act as a result of a complaint from the Council. We have confirmed the validity of this email and have the original which clearly shows it was sourced from the companies system. We even have the name of the sender's computer.
Regarding the attached, please be assured that the reason for your dismissal was as stated. The complaint from Greenwich Council was received by our H.R. department direct and was deemed by them to be of sufficient importance to require immediate action and I was informed of that decision. Their concern was on two fronts firstly they felt our standing with the Council was in jeopardy and secondly that the writing of many lengthy private emails in company time was not appropriate.
The company concedes in this email that it received a complaint from the Council, and acted upon it because of its "standing" with them. Meanwhile the Council denies having sent an email at all.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As stated previously - apparently the company received an email from a private yahoo address stating that this guy was harassing the council and wasting a lot of company time.It was not sent directly from the council, although it was probably from a disgruntled council employee.The council might have been unaware that this had been sent.

The company probably just simplified things in their email to this guy saying that it was recieved from the council, not knowing that this guy would make a meal out of every technicality.

He should have been dismissed anyway regardless of the fact that the company had links with the council. If he was harassing any company or anybody in company time then they were right to dismiss him.

8:39 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do i detect a hint of blac oops Greenwich, non whitemail???

8:54 pm  
Blogger Barbara said...

Now that is scarey the council is ment to be in our service - ie provide various services to the residents of this borough - thank god this is my computer and not my employers"

10:32 pm  
Blogger Major Gripe said...

Are we in Soviet Russia? It's amazing how much like a small child a council can be.

To the first comment, above: pretty obvious who you work for. And a pathetic attempt to explain something that is beyond justification. How do you sleep at night?

12:02 pm  
Blogger Barbara said...

Anonymous seems to be very pro - council, There is no way a company would "simplify" someone’s dismissal notice & it does seem that he will have a case for an employment tribunal at which point Greenwich can be called as a witness & will have to make their correspondence with the company available to the tribunal & quite possibly public at which point we may well discover who anonymous is!

5:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incredulous and anonymous this time said ...

Have I got this right - a good employee of a private company that happens to be a contractor to the Council is sacked because he complained about the Council's failures in the street-cleaning and grass-cutting department? Outrageous.

Some while ago, I heard that our Member of Parliament attempted to get a hospital employee sacked because she heckled him in the street during the run-up to a general election; but her union stuck up for her. I couldn't quite believe it at the time; now, though ...

10:28 am  
Anonymous t said...

If the email from the council employee came from a yahoo address then the council employee should be sacked too.

1. How dare they harrass a council contractor.

2. Why have they communicated council business through an unofficial (non-greenwich) channel?

3. Accessing yahoo mail is surely against greenwichs IT policy, why are they being allowed access to personal email on publicly funded computers?

4:49 pm  
Blogger Half The Story said...

The person sacked MUST be shown the letter/email, as that is the evidence used.

As per the SDP brought in by labout lasr year.

10:08 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting that the HR people felt the e-mails were merely 'not appropriate' and there is no reference at all to this being against any company policy. Therefore, would not a warning have been more appropriate? Things should be proportionate - yes he did something wrong, but losing your job is a surely too harsh a punishment?

12:57 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to `Anonymous 8.54pm`.

Grow up SAD O.

This guy is as white as you Angel.

10:09 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home