BOOTS-RLP 17 year old employee demand £876.00

[JonCris]

Boots are VERY careful never to use slanderous terms in the letters they send out UNLESS they have absolute proof. The letter does say something along the lines of "for failure of duties" its vague for a reason - and its in the Boots contracts now about RLP.

 

For gross misconduct they can withhold holiday pay etc - the contract remember that you have been found to have breached - this type of action has stood up in tribunals recently.

 

The cost breakdown usually stands up to scruntiny - but sometimes is changed to what a Judge seems fair.

 

I had a email exchange with the OP at the time and passed on a little inside info that might have helped - I hope it did

 

 

They don't have to make the defamation statement themselves.........they only have to allow their agents (RLP) to do so for there to be grounds for an action against the retailer/employer to succeed.

 

They cannot wash their hands of their agents actions. Also are you alleging that RLP do NOT base their accusations on the info provided by their client Boots. Cos if that's the case that makes for a very interesting legal situation indeed if true 'criminal' libel comes to mind as apossed to simple libel

[SirHumpy]

From what I read neither Boots or the RLP did not say "theft" etc, just failure of duties or something near to that. Boots, or agents on behalf would not use such terms - I've only seen it in writting the once - the majority of times it reads "gross misconduct" etc or something else as vague. For the very reason they dont want to be sued later on.

 

RLP base their action on the instructions of Boots. The letters are usually of a standard agreed template similar to the one posted in the first post. These templates are known to be very tight legally speaking and are only used when the dismissed person has admitted something (recorded in writting) at the interviews/investigation stages.

[JonCris]

Any false allegation including one of 'gross misconduct' is capable of being defamation & is therefore actionable.

 

It is the intention of the writer not how they word the letter. In otherwords besides being a civil matter it's also criminal offense to communicate with another intending to cause upset & stress particularly by making false accusations

[midnightminky]

rlp seem to churn out the same letter oblivious as to wether you are dismissed/left of own accord/found guilty/not guilty/did do it/didnt do it.in most of the letters i have seen on here (including mine) the words 'wrongful actions' are frequently used. i thought only a judge could deem you guilty

[juliusceasor]

4. Apportioned security and surveillance costs resulting from your wrongful actions - £400.00

 

 

I picked on his one point because I doubt if surveillance and security costs come into this on top of management time. As the security team didn't pick up on this I suspect an audit of stock against till records picked it up.

So this charge is spurious.

 

As to the rest of the letter and it's contents then perhaps the charges could be argued except for the fact that you were not properly trained and for that Boots is Liable. Therefore you could not be held responsible for your actions which were un-intentional.

 

Tribunal of you can get it is a good avenue as it is quite informal not as informal as arbitration but still a good route.

Good luck with this I think it is appalling that this has happened when it is a mistake due to lack of adequate training. And for them to tell you that RLP will contact you, to deduct your holiday pay shows just how much the BOOTS brand is no longer the firm of old that perhaps many of us remember.

 

Keep fighting

[JonCris]

Bugger a tribunal these are matters for a proper court to decide

[Lula]

subbing

[MARTIN3030]

Here Here.

Boots are a very big organisation who are without doubt able to negotiate and put in place CCTV at significantly favourable rates.I would suggest that their systems are costing a few quid a week to manage-in fact many big firms on the net openly advertise this.

They will additionally be offsetting these costs against tax....

In the case of one guy I was helping who was stopped in B&Q -RLP claimed that security costs formed a good part of their £250 damages-yet it was mostly non security staff who were tasked -these people are on a fiver an hour-their assistance took 20 minutes !!!-Bob the timberman and Jim the loading assistant.

[funkyparott]

Any false allegation including one of 'gross misconduct' is capable of being defamation & is therefore actionable.

 

It is the intention of the writer not how they word the letter. In otherwords besides being a civil matter it's also criminal offense to communicate with another intending to cause upset & stress particularly by making false accusations

 

Doesn't the letter have to be seen by someone else in order for one's reputation to be damaged ? I.e published in a paper etc.

[Zamzara]

For gross misconduct they can withhold holiday pay etc - the contract remember that you have been found to have breached - this type of action has stood up in tribunals recently.

 

If it has stood up in tribunals then they have erred in law. See Witley and District Men’s Club v Mackay. Furthermore the Employment Rights Act defines termination of contract due to fundamental breach by either side as a dismissal situation. (It may be possible for the contract to provide for a non-zero reduced payment, so the OP will have to clarify if that is the case.)

[Zamzara]

Doesn't the letter have to be seen by someone else in order for one's reputation to be damaged ? I.e published in a paper etc.

 

Yes it is a fundamental requirement. It's possible that the communication between the two companies would suffice though. Also RLP claim to operate some kind of blacklist where they report on people to other clients.

[JonCris]

Correct Zam

 

To be libel the accusation only has to be available to another & as you say they claim to operate a black list which itself indicates their intention to pass it on to a 3rd party to the extreme detriment of the subject

 

As HH Judge Eady recently remarked when overturning a lower courts finding "It's not for the courts to get into a numbers game once is enough to justify an action"

[My Real Name]

Just as an aside, any blacklist would be covered by the Data Protection Act (and, consequently, would provide certain protections to individuals with personal data stored on it).

 

I'm sure that the Information Commissioner's Office would be interested in making another high profile raid on a company operating a less than compliant database(cf. the Consulting Association).