interestrateripoff Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Mhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353147/Sacked-dinner-lady-Carol-Hill-revealed-bullying-gets-49-99-compensation.html Telling the parents over the incident was a breach of confidentiality. The case began when Mrs Hill helped the seven-year-old youngster, who had been tied to a fence and whipped with a skipping rope by four children.She later bumped into the schoolgirl’s parents at a Beaver Scouts meeting, she assumed they had been told and asked how she was – only to discover they had been informed she had suffered a ‘minor accident’. ............... Mrs Hill was suspended by headteacher Debbie Crabb and spoke to a newspaper about her distress. She was dismissed three months later for breaching confidentiality and bringing the school into disrepute. ............ A spokesman for Great Tey School and Essex County Council admitted the dismissal procedures had been flawed but said the tribunal had found against Mrs Hill in some areas, including that she was ‘not acting in good faith when speaking to the Press'. Still I bet the head is picking up a near 6 figure salary. Sweep it under the carpet and deny everything. What's the betting the head remains in post, not telling the parents of the incident is clearly acceptable policy and not even worth a disciplinary case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6538 Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Mhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353147/Sacked-dinner-lady-Carol-Hill-revealed-bullying-gets-49-99-compensation.html Telling the parents over the incident was a breach of confidentiality. Still I bet the head is picking up a near 6 figure salary. Sweep it under the carpet and deny everything. What's the betting the head remains in post, not telling the parents of the incident is clearly acceptable policy and not even worth a disciplinary case. She shouldn't have spoken to the press. If a kid had been tied to a fence and whipped by other kids then she should have gone straight to the police. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SarahBell Report post Posted February 3, 2011 She was asked out of work hours wasn't she? One of the dinner ladies at my primary school was fantastic - they used to do playground duty too. She was called Mrs Cushion and she always had a tissue for you if you needed one. Bet you're not allowed to give kids a tissue these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patfig Report post Posted February 3, 2011 She was asked out of work hours wasn't she? One of the dinner ladies at my primary school was fantastic - they used to do playground duty too. She was called Mrs Cushion and she always had a tissue for you if you needed one. Bet you're not allowed to give kids a tissue these days. why whats wrong with tissues Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SarahBell Report post Posted February 3, 2011 why whats wrong with tissues Dunno but I didn't think there was anything wrong with plasters or paracetomol either. At secondary school we could skive off to sick bay where we'd get a painkiller and a lie down... Does that make my school sound posh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patfig Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Dunno but I didn't think there was anything wrong with plasters or paracetomol either. At secondary school we could skive off to sick bay where we'd get a painkiller and a lie down... Does that make my school sound posh? yeah if you had a sick bay Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Executive Sadman Report post Posted February 3, 2011 This is the way 21st century Britain operates. A box ticking target meeting culture enforced by robotic like lawyers and politicians, devoid of any humanity in the creation and enforcement of their laws. If you have common sense or morality, forget about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6538 Report post Posted February 3, 2011 She was asked out of work hours wasn't she? One of the dinner ladies at my primary school was fantastic - they used to do playground duty too. She was called Mrs Cushion and she always had a tissue for you if you needed one. Bet you're not allowed to give kids a tissue these days. It doesn't matter. If you were asked to talk about confidential matters involving your employer (not to mention children in your employers care) then would you not think that it may not be the appropriate thing to do? I mean, who on earth goes to the press with something like this? Why is it an automatic decision to seek publicity in order to solve every problem these days? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6538 Report post Posted February 3, 2011 This is the way 21st century Britain operates. A box ticking target meeting culture enforced by robotic like lawyers and politicians, devoid of any humanity in the creation and enforcement of their laws. If you have common sense or morality, forget about it. Sorry don't agree. People seem to think that she was sacked for letting slip to the parents about what happened to their kid. She wasn't. She was sacked for blabbing confidential work-related matters to the press. The Tribunal didn't say she was unfairly dismissed, just that the correct procedures weren't followed to sack her. So, in that respect you are right, she got money simply because her employers didn't tick the right boxes when sacking her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Melchett Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Ok, so she shouldnt have spoken to the press? Arguable, at the very least. Many organisations have gagging contracts. It doesnt make it right. However, the bigger point here is that the school management lied to the parents of a child, and tried to conceal an assault on that child, including misusing the disciplinary process to try to do so. Have they been sacked, or even disciplined? Let me guess? Incidentally, although i now have no links to the place, I grew up in the next village, 35-25 odd years ago. this is not the sort of place where word doesnt get round, so god knows how the head thought she could suppress this . If you've never lived in a rural village, maybe you wouldnt understand, but Great Tey is not a big place. I bet the HT doesnt live there, though, and probably doesnt grasp this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6538 Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Ok, so she shouldnt have spoken to the press? Arguable, at the very least. Many organisations have gagging contracts. It doesnt make it right. You wouldn't even need a specific clause in the contract. It's part of the implied mutual duty of trust and confidence. She was talking about specific work related matters of a serious nature. This wasn't "whistle blowing" and if it was you don't go straight to the press you go to whichever authrity can deal with the problem. It appears that she talked to the press because she was p1ssed off at being suspended which is not on. Think of it the other way around, if an employer went about discussing its employees personal matters it would get hauled over the coals, and rightly so. However, the bigger point here is that the school management lied to the parents of a child, and tried to conceal an assault on that child, including misusing the disciplinary process to try to do so. Have they been sacked, or even disciplined? Let me guess? Well, we don't know if it misused the disciplianry process for the paurpose because it never took place. A disciplinary investigation is so that the facts can be established and a decision arrived at. Look at it from the position of the employer, one of your employees has been discussing business matters to third parties, matters which involve kids. It's quite likely that they did not know the full story so really had little choice in suspending her. She may well have been totally exonerated by the investigation and, from the looks of it, likely would have been. I totally agree that the school does seem to have lied to the parents about what happened to their kid. If they did, given the nature of what actually went on, then I find it absolutely reprehensible and heads should roll. Then again, we don't know all the facts, they may well have not known specifically what went on and believed that the kid had indeed befallen a minor accident. Incidentally, although i now have no links to the place, I grew up in the next village, 35-25 odd years ago. this is not the sort of place where word doesnt get round, so god knows how the head thought she could suppress this . If you've never lived in a rural village, maybe you wouldnt understand, but Great Tey is not a big place. I bet the HT doesnt live there, though, and probably doesnt grasp this point. That's not really the point though. Word may well have "got round" but going straight to the press as a way of conducting your disciplinary defence is not the thing to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guitarman001 Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Love this comment: 'Just more proof that the country is now run by lawyers, lefties and chinless wonders!!!' So true. Pretty horrific thing to happen to the kid, I'd be outraged if it were one of my sisters. The country is completely going to the dogs and I think leftism is the major downfall here... everybody is just too scared to speak up for what's right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EmmaRoid Report post Posted February 3, 2011 why whats wrong with tissues You get accused of grooming Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patfig Report post Posted February 3, 2011 You get accused of grooming doesn't that need a comb or a brush? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kurt Barlow Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Sorry don't agree. People seem to think that she was sacked for letting slip to the parents about what happened to their kid. She wasn't. She was sacked for blabbing confidential work-related matters to the press. The Tribunal didn't say she was unfairly dismissed, just that the correct procedures weren't followed to sack her. So, in that respect you are right, she got money simply because her employers didn't tick the right boxes when sacking her. Polkey Judgement then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prescience Report post Posted February 3, 2011 Still I bet the head is picking up a near 6 figure salary. Sweep it under the carpet and deny everything. What's the betting the head remains in post, not telling the parents of the incident is clearly acceptable policy and not even worth a disciplinary case. The heads probably into BDS&M. Rather than having it off with underage pupils............ . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6538 Report post Posted February 3, 2011 You get accused of grooming Reminds me of a joke (think I read it on here, actually); Market researcher from Gillette approached me in the street today and asked me what my favorite grooming products were. I replied, "A couple of bags of Haribo and a copy of High School Musical usually does the trick" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
