I think so, this is a store in which over 200 people work, just how isolated can anyone feel in the middle of the day? I wonder sometimes if it's a personal thing as they've chanced their arm with me a few times (I had an accident at work a couple of years ago, and was wheelchair bound for 6 months as a result) and they came off the worse for wear. I've often felt that daggers were drawn after that and only stayed put for the sake of paying the rent and feeding the kids! The system works beautifully when dealing with Uni kids who (for the most part) won't stand up for themselves, they just don't like having to deal with reasonably informed adults. He's determined to find another job now come what may, as far as he's concerned mud sticks and they've basically trashed his reputation, which is the thing he can't bear.

I will definitely ensure that the questions you have raised are asked when his disciplinary meeting is called, we intend on sending him well prepared, thank you. Knowing the store, I doubt she's had much training, their selection criteria is based more on whether a person's face fits. From my personal point of view, she's taken umbrage that he wasn't accepting of her "well it's done now, that's all there is to it" attitude to having gone through his locker and chucking his personal stuff, without even a word of apology. She may be HR but is still only the same grade as any other colleague, though some are keen to forget that. She could have, at any time, picked up an internal phone and asked for someone but she didn't and now they're just rallying round each other. They all hang out together in and out of work, management, HR, and associate movers and shakers. Forgot to add that they flagged up that she's also pregnant (yes, and?) So the poor dear must have been doubly in fear for her life [sarcasm intended]

Hi Ibruk & Stu, Thanks for your time. When this incident occurred he'd never met her before, as he predominantly spends most of his time driving he doesn't actually meet many colleagues in-store. So no axe to grind with her whatsoever. She is new to her position in HR, to the best of my knowledge she isn't an 'HR person' merely elevated from the shopfloor (as a lot of them are) to take on admin duties etc. Fairly 'A' typical of the type, she adopts all the authoritative attitude (condescending, patronising etc) without having any idea of how to deal with people. She never invited him to take a seat, never said to him that she found his body language intimidating (I doubt she's an expert on that either) never made any attempt to exit the office. So she is basically clueless as to whether he was looking to prevent her leaving. For his part, he says he followed her into the office and just stood inside the door whilst talking to her, with his hand on it. To me, that's a completely normal posture to adopt when in a room with little space to walk about, certainly her friend had no trouble getting through the door midway through their conversation and doesn't report one. She backs her friend up about the body language though! I guess I'm just amazed that it's come to this, I have never heard of anyone being taken to disciplinary never having said anything wrong or actually done anything wrong, they might as well just say they didn't like his face. I know he can be abrupt and seem quite stern, particularly when spoken down to but, intimidating to a woman? Never. He's served in some sensitive areas during his time in the army as a junior NCO and if there's one thing he does know it's how to conduct himself with discipline. The union rep didn't see this coming either and, being the first time we've called on the union, they're an untried quantity for us so not sure how helpful they can be. I've often heard it said that they're in the company's pocket.

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to reply. He attended the investigation meeting this morning and it's been referred to a full blown disciplinary, no attempt was made to discuss the 'issue' with him prior to going straight to grievance. He has seen the witness statements supplied by the person directly concerned and her 'witness'. The person who raised the grievance contends that he had his hand on the door, therefore she felt he was preventing her from leaving the room, that she made no attempt to do so seems neither here nor there. Surely he could only prevent her leaving if she attempted to do so, she was at one end of the office and he the other. Her witness contends that his body language was intimidating, neither say that he said anything untoward or did anything untoward. He is represented by USDAW and had a rep with him this morning, I just do not trust this company and am worried especially as I'm only on SMP at present, they bring the term 'cronyism' into ill repute. Am also concerned that he hasn't been suspended as what is to stop her adding to her grievance? as he's going to constantly run into her in corridors etc.

Well, basic rate tax is at 20% so £63.80 from a wage of £319.00 is correct. If he's still registered with the agency as well as working for someone else, then he does have a second job, so it looks right to me. If you feel it's wrong then get onto the HMRC website and follow direction from there, should provide relevant contact details etc.

Hi, It's a basic rate tax code for a second job. If it's incorrect you can get it corrected by contacting HMRC. It basically means that he pays basic rate tax as his personal allowance has already been used up through his first/main job.

Hi, She simply 'thought' it was available, never checked though.

Hello, Am hoping that some of you may be able to give me some advice on behalf of my husband, will try to keep it brief and to the point:- My husband has worked for the same large retailer as me for the last two years as a delivery driver, has never been late, never been off sick/absent , and has never been in trouble of any kind (customer complaints etc) Recently, following a weeks annual leave, he returned to find that his locker had been emptied of all personal effects, payslips, cash, etc. and that somebody else's personal items were in there. He went to see HR to find out what was going on and, having been made to wait a day or two, finally the person responsible was in work and he went to speak to her. He was (IMO) understandably a bit upset and was confronted with that she thought it was available (never consulted the file to see which locker was issued to who etc. and if they'd left) she'd chucked his stuff and said that there was a total of 14p which she'd put in the charity box but "she'd give it to him if he was that upset about it" he reckons there was a few quid in there, but that's not the issue. Anyway, last week he was told to attend an investigatory meeting today at 9am, seemingly this lady has raised a grievance against him saying that he intimidated her, was between her and the door, and kept his hand on the door. She also has a witness (a crony of hers) who walked in halfway who backs her up saying that his 'body language' was threatening. He says he starting talking to her in the corridor, she walked past him into the office mid conversation and he naturally (conversation not over) followed her. It's a long narrow office, walkway only large enough for one person at a time so, obviously having followed her in, he would be between her and the door without any engineering at all. She never once said she wanted to get past, said 'excuse me' or intimated in anyway that she wished to leave the office and that he was blocking her way. He didn't swear at her, no finger jabbing, fist waving, invasion of her space, nothing and, as he says, if he was holding the door closed then how did her friend get through it halfway through the conversation? Their whole complaint is that his body language was threatening. He's called a while ago to say that following two hours in an investigation meeting, they have decided that 'due to the seriousness of the allegation' it is going to a disciplinary. I am really upset about this as I'm currently on Maternity leave and I can't believe that he's having his reputation wrecked basically. He's a good man who served in the Armed Forces for 7 years and left with an exemplary record only to have someone sling mud for nothing more than not liking how he was standing. He has not been suspended and (I think) for his own sake if nothing else, he should have been. If any of you could give us some advice it would be appreciated.