Breach of contract now boss threatening with solicitors

whoopwhoop80

I broke my contract by not giving a weeks notice... now my ex boss is threatening with solicitors however i could not stick it there anymore. He called me foreign trash on numerous occasions laughing about it. Called me stupid and made offensive comments about my religion. Does he have a foot to stand on?

AARRRGH

Yes, you broke your contract.

Will he follow through with his threats of legal action? Unlikely.

Nody

None what so ever but here is what I recommend you do, go to a solicitor and tell your story and sue him for constructive dismissal. This is the only way to not only shut him up but to teach him a expensive lesson. Please note that this is not legal advice, you need a solicitor for this but your ex manager sounds as a barking moonbat who could use with a lesson in civility.

leeroybrown

Your former boss sounds like a grade 'A' idiot. I can understand employers going down a legal route if a senior employee with a notice period in excess of a month drops everything and runs but threatening legal action against someone on a one week notice period is just a ridiculous waste of their time. I'd suggest that unless a solicitor is already involved it should just be treated as an idiot blowing off steam with idle threats. If they do go to the hassle of involving a solicitor then talk to one yourself to scare them off. Until then let it blow over to save your time and money.

AARRRGH

How do you know he wasn't joking? Seriously, I know lots of people whose humour is based around saying semi-offensive things. After all, you do say he would say this stuff and then laugh.

Maybe you are over-sensitive?

I'm not trying to be heartless, but as both an employee and a former employer (well, I worked in HR) I know the employee is not always innocent and frequently has a warped view of how evil their boss is.

Anyway, it is very unlikely any sort of legal action will occur - people break their notice all the time.

eth0_

AARRRGH wrote: »

How do you know he wasn't joking? Seriously, I know lots of people whose humour is based around saying semi-offensive things. After all, you do say he would say this stuff and then laugh.

Oh for God's sake! Yes some people have a sense of humour like that, but if you are a MANAGER you don't speak to your employee like that. If he really spoke to the OP like that he deserves to be sued or lose his job.

I used to have a manager who constantly made racist and sexist jokes and comments about people, and while it was never aimed at me, it was really trying having to listen to it every day. I really wish i'd made a complaint about him before I left because no one should have to deal with a person like that when they're trying to do their job.

AARRRGH

I think there are two sides to every story. It really is possible the manager is a funny guy, who pokes fun at people and tries to have a laugh. As we all know, people rarely tell the entire story when they post emotional topics like this one.

Or of course, he could be an absolute ****...

I have a feeling the OP is exaggerating though.

eth0_

Calling someone "foreign trash" isn't very funny.
A manager's job is not to poke fun at people, it is his job to manage, and that involves not speaking to your subordinates in a manner that may cause offence.

neemo

technically you would have been in a better position if you'd stuck it out and made your complaint formally about him through your griveance procedure rather than walking out. BUT You can't be discriminated against on certain grounds though including race i think so you would have a good response if not your own claim against him if he did pursue action, unfortuntely constructive dismissal is an uphill battle and not as easy as unfair dismissal, Nody is right about speaking with a solicitor or if you are broke Citizen's advice centre etc, people like him really shouldnt get away with it

AARRRGH

eth0_ wrote: »

Calling someone "foreign trash" isn't very funny.
A manager's job is not to poke fun at people, it is his job to manage, and that involves not speaking to your subordinates in a manner that may cause offence.

But we don't know the context of how it was said.

A group of them might have been joking around about Irish people or whatever, and he may have said well they're better than foreign trash and laughed. That can easily be said in a teasing rather than offensive way.

I find it hard to believe a manager would call a member of staff stupid, foreign trash, make insults about their religion and then threaten them with legal action.

I think there is more to this story, that's all...

eth0_

AARRRGH wrote: »

I find it hard to believe a manager would call a member of staff stupid, foreign trash, make insults about their religion and then threaten them with legal action.

This sort of thing happens quite regularly.

dazberry

AARRRGH wrote: »

I find it hard to believe a manager would call a member of staff stupid, foreign trash, make insults about their religion and then threaten them with legal action.

I'm not surprised in the slightest - and while there may indeed be more to it - bullies will use any mechanism they have available to them.

I've been threatened (baselessly) a few times. The one I think is funniest is that time I was coming to the end of a fixed term contract and my boss decides I should hand in a months notice - a short discussion ensues and I get threatened with legal action - to which I pop out the contract (always good to keep these things at arms reach), read the key bit, and then ask him what are the labour court going to say when I read them this - hehehe I've never seen someone rollback so quickly

D.

CDfm

I find this a hard one to believe and cant take it seriously.

Dont know how many times I was called a redneck etc a few years back.

IF you have a fixed term contract -its over collect your holiday money and whatever and deal with the HR Dept if you have a problem.

IF you have another job go to it and if not well.......

mountainyman

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm not trying to be heartless, but as both an employee and a former employer (well, I worked in HR) I know the employee is not always innocent and frequently has a warped view of how evil their boss is.

Working in HR doesn't make you an employer.

Mr. Incognito

But we don't know the context of how it was said.

A group of them might have been joking around about Irish people or whatever, and he may have said well they're better than foreign trash and laughed. That can easily be said in a teasing rather than offensive way.

I find it hard to believe you work in HR. Have you any knowledge of labor law?

Comments relating to religion, sexual orientation, country of origin etc. said in a work environment in ANY context are grounds for dismissal in 99% of cases no matter how over-sensitive the OP might or might not be.

Sheesh. Open your employers handbook.

CDfm

mountainyman wrote: »

Working in HR doesn't make you an employer.

but it does give you an idea of how things work.

if you are dealing with a blast of temp or fixed term workers you could be tempted to say well if you dont like the place go elsewhere

I have an ex colleague who moaned about everything in Ireland the weather busses phones -so people would say why dont you go home - not in an un PC way simply were bored at her whines

Eoin

mountainyman wrote: »

Working in HR doesn't make you an employer.

Technically the business is the employer, but as that's normally an entity rather than a person, then the people who work in the department that do or organise the hiring and firing are pretty close in my book/

@whoopwhoop80 - speak to a solicitor, and document everything that was said to you. No matter how funny the boss thinks it was, you didn't - and when it comes to employment cases, the onus is on them to defend themselves. That may not be the legal standpoint, but in practise that's normally the case.

CDfm

I think the Equality Act should be updated to include people from Cork - I reaaly do

AARRRGH

SetantaL wrote: »

I find it hard to believe you work in HR. Have you any knowledge of labor law?

Comments relating to religion, sexual orientation, country of origin etc. said in a work environment in ANY context are grounds for dismissal in 99% of cases no matter how over-sensitive the OP might or might not be.

Sheesh. Open your employers handbook.

That's absolute nonsense. Have you any knowledge of Irish labour law?

You sound like one of Dworkin/MacKinnon right wing feminists who thinks sexual harassment should have nothing to do with harassment but instead focus on any mention of the word sex.

It is perfectly acceptable to talk about someone's sexual orientation, country of origin etc. in the work place*. Saying someone should be instantly dismissed for doing so is, I have to say, absolutely pathetic.

Harassing someone is a different story.

My previous comments were based on "could the OP be over-sensitive" as I personally find it hard to believe an employer would say those thing and then have to threaten the employee with legal action.

*Before some retard says "but what about in an interview situation" I am obviously not talking about an interview situation.

Mr. Incognito

Here's a useful link:

http://www.siptu.ie/YourRights/TUFGuideToLabourLaw/SafetyHealthWelfareatWork/BullyingInTheWorkplace/

He called me foreign trash on numerous occasions laughing about it. Called me stupid and made offensive comments about my religion

The OP is being over sensitive? Are you insane?

Have you any knowledge of Irish labour law?

Yes. I'm a qualified solicitor.

It is perfectly acceptable to talk about someone's sexual orientation, country of origin etc. in the work place. Saying someone should be instantly dismissed for doing so is, I have to say, absolutely pathetic.

I would agree, however we are not talking about a chat around the water cooler about Johhny's new boyfreind. We are talking about a manager, belittling a junior based on ethnicity AND religious orientation repeatedly. If this went to court it's an open and shut harrasement, constructive dismissal judgement. Hands down. You be hard pressed to find legal representation to even bother defending this. Settle would be the advice.

Comments relating to religion, sexual orientation, country of origin etc. said in a work environment in ANY abusive context are grounds for dismissal in 99% of cases no matter how over-sensitive the OP might or might not be.

That was a typo- fixed.

If you work in HR and have anything less than a very very serious and hard line stance on these matters, and a clear operating procedure on how to handle these complaints, I'd expect a large compensation settlement down the line.

Your first reaction of "ah, shure are you sure he meant it like that", employed by you to one of your employees who comes to you would be a very very dangerous line to take.

It really is possible the manager is a funny guy, who pokes fun at people and tries to have a laugh

A manager poking fun at people for a laugh- we have a name for that. Bullying.

AARRRGH

SetantaL wrote: »

Here's a useful link:

http://www.siptu.ie/YourRights/TUFGuideToLabourLaw/SafetyHealthWelfareatWork/BullyingInTheWorkplace/

Could you point out where that document says talking to someone about their religion, country of origin, or sexuality in the workplace should lead to dismissal?

If you want to rephrase your previous response so you mean bullying someone in the workplace, than we're in agreement. But if you honestly think you cannot have a conversation about someone's country of origin etc., well you are an extremeist and we will not be able to reach any agreement.

I'm only asking you to be reasonable.

SetantaL wrote: »

The OP is being over sensitive? Are you insane?

You can stop with the insults. I said "she might be". I am trying to look at the entire picture instead of jumping to conclusions.

SetantaL wrote: »

Yes. I'm a qualified solicitor.

I find that hard to believe.

SetantaL wrote: »

That was a typo- fixed.

OK, well that was a pretty serious typo.

SetantaL wrote: »

If you work in HR and have anything less than a very very serious and hard line stance on these matters, and a clear operating procedure on how to handle these complaints, I'd expect a large compensation settlement down the line.

Your first reaction of "ah, shure are you sure he meant it like that", employed by you to one of your employees who comes to you would be a very very dangerous line to take.

This is a discussion forum on the Internet. It is not real life. We are not having a HR meeting.

We are having a discussion about the OP's post. As someone who has used the Internet for a long time (15+ years) I know people rarely tell the whole story.

I am trying to bring some balance to the discussion, namely, the OP who is presumably a non-native English speaker from a different culture, could she have misinterpreted what happened?

As a supposed solicitor, you should know there are two sides to every story.

Mr. Incognito

Could you point out where that document says talking to someone about their religion, country of origin, or sexuality in the workplace should lead to dismissal?

What Is Bullying Behaviour?
Some examples of bullying behaviour to be aware of are –

*harassment on any of the nine discriminatory grounds cited in the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

I'm sure you'll remember these from your labour law modules, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, member of the travelling community etc.

And we are not talking about "talking", we are talking about bullying. This disticntion has been made.

If you want to rephrase your previous response so you mean bullying someone in the workplace, than we're in agreement. But if you honestly think you cannot have a conversation about someone's country of origin etc., well you are an extremeist and we will not be able to reach any agreement.

I have already rephrased it.

You can stop with the insults.

I find that hard to believe

These two sentences are hilarious. Especially when they follow each other. Pot/Kettle. Anyway, this is off topic.

It is not real life

It is to the OP.

namely, the OP who is presumably a non-native English speaker from a different culture, could she have misinterpreted what happened?

As a supposed solicitor, you should know there are two sides to every story.

I actually find this quite bigoted. Can you suggest a likely scenario that a superior could discuss an employees religion/ ethnicity and then laugh and it not to be a grounds for harrasement?

There are two scenario's here. Either the OP is lying or she is not. Her sensitivies do not come into it. Mis-interpretation in this context is highly unlikely nor do we have any evidence from the OP's post that she has any problems writing in and understanding english.

If she is telling the truth this is an open shut harrasement case.

If she is lying, it is not.

Can you offer a viable third option?

CDfm

SetantaL wrote: »

Yes. I'm a qualified solicitor.

Any chance in opinion on being from Cork in Dublin?


Wasnt there also Department of Labour Service - Rights Commisioners or something that was a fairly cheap way of enforcing payments rights etc too.

Most Citizens Advice Service Centres in Dublin do have Solicitors experienced in Labour Law available by appointment(its a restricted service) .

AARRRGH

SetantaL wrote: »

What Is Bullying Behaviour?
Some examples of bullying behaviour to be aware of are –

*harassment on any of the nine discriminatory grounds cited in the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

I'm sure you'll remember these from your labour law modules, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, member of the travelling community etc.

And we are not talking about "talking", we are talking about bullying. This disticntion has been made.

Yes, I agree with you that *harassment* is bullying. Previously you said just talking to someone about those things should lead to dismissal.

There is a HUGE difference.

I fully accept the OP's boss could be an evil bastard, but I'm keeping an open mind.

SetantaL wrote: »

These two sentences are hilarious. Especially when they follow each other. Pot/Kettle. Anyway, this is off topic.

You keep taking things out of context. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not.

You said talking to somone about what country they're from should lead to dismissal, followed by a statement that you are a solicitor.

Surely a solicitor would know better than that? Hence my statement that I do not believe you are a solicitor.

You have now changed your story so you mean harrassing someone should lead to dismissal. I obviously agree with this.

SetantaL wrote: »

I actually find this quite bigoted. Can you suggest a likely scenario that a superior could discuss an employees religion/ ethnicity and then laugh and it not to be a grounds for harrasement?

Well done on trying to insult me again.

I have worked in many offices where everyone jokes around. There are always a few people who have a "risky" sense of humour, but are well intentioned. Often these people use humour to try to include the quieter ones in the office.

I remember working in a place like that when a (sort of) friend of mine starting working there on a temporary contract. She also isn't Irish, and I would describe her as a humourless, angry person.

Well she couldn't understand that Irish people "slag" each other and used to get very angry about this, even if the jokes were not directed at her.

She never complained to management, but she was adamant about the bullying in the office.

The problem, of course, was her.

If she posted on this forum you would believe she worked in a horrible office. This is one of the main reasons I am keeping an open mind on this one.

SetantaL wrote: »

There are two scenario's here. Either the OP is lying or she is not. Her sensitivies do not come into it. Mis-interpretation in this context is highly unlikely nor do we have any evidence from the OP's post that she has any problems writing in and understanding english.

If she is telling the truth this is an open shut harrasement case.

If she is lying, it is not.

Can you offer a viable third option?

We don't need a third option. I am saying let's consider both options, whereas you are saying there is only one option.

Mr. Incognito

Okay- lets avoid all the off topic stuff. Congecture, Bruised ego's etc.


OP:

He called me foreign trash on numerous occasions laughing about it. Called me stupid and made offensive comments about my religion

AND

I have worked in many offices where everyone jokes around. There are always a few people who have a "risky" sense of humour, but are well intentioned. Often these people use humour to try to include the quieter ones in the office.

I remember working in a place like that when a (sort of) friend of mine starting working there on a temporary contract. She also isn't Irish, and I would describe her as a humourless, angry person.

Well she couldn't understand that Irish people "slag" each other and used to get very angry about this, even if the jokes were not directed at her.

She never complained to management, but she was adamant about the bullying in the office.

The problem, of course, was her.

Can you marry these two examples?

Can you suggest how the OP could be called foreign trash, stupid and have her religion insulted in any context on an on-going basis and it not be grounds for dismissal for her boss. The Law is pretty clear that this is bullying/harrasement and when done over a continued period is absoulutely grounds for dismissal.

Are we in agreement on this?

Kila

whoopwhoop80 wrote: »

I broke my contract by not giving a weeks notice... now my ex boss is threatening with solicitors however i could not stick it there anymore. He called me foreign trash on numerous occasions laughing about it. Called me stupid and made offensive comments about my religion. Does he have a foot to stand on?

Leaving aside the more off topic info on this thread, you haven't just breached your contract, you've (likely) broken the law.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/starting-work-and-changing-job/changing-job/giving_notice

If you've been in the job more than 13 weeks, then you are legally obliged to give a minimum of 1 weeks notice.

If this is the case for you, I suggest you call the free legal aid helpline, as not only have you breached contract with him, but you have (possibly) broken a law also.

AARRRGH

SetantaL wrote: »

Can you suggest how the OP could be called foreign trash, stupid and have her religion insulted in any context on an on-going basis and it not be grounds for dismissal for her boss. The Law is pretty clear that this is bullying/harrasement and when done over a continued period is absoulutely grounds for dismissal.

Are we in agreement on this?

If he was harassing her I agree some action should be taken against him.

I just don't believe the OP is telling us the full story.

I hope she comes back and gives us more information.

CDfm

AARRRGH wrote: »

If he was harassing her I agree some action should be taken against him.

I just don't believe the OP is telling us the full story.

I hope she comes back and gives us more information.

bullying is wrong - no excuses for it

however if it is a cultural thing the guy should not be blamed for a misunderstanding

Jo King

Kila wrote: »

Leaving aside the more off topic info on this thread, you haven't just breached your contract, you've (likely) broken the law.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/starting-work-and-changing-job/changing-job/giving_notice

If you've been in the job more than 13 weeks, then you are legally obliged to give a minimum of 1 weeks notice.

If this is the case for you, I suggest you call the free legal aid helpline, as not only have you breached contract with him, but you have (possibly) broken a law also.

This is not correct. If the boss behaved as described then he broke the contract. The employee is entitled to repudiate the contract for a fundamental breach which we are told happened in this case.
No one at work is obliged to put up with remarks of the kind described by the o/p, however much they might have been made in jest.
Clearlyt if something else happened it is a different story but it is risible to try and import an alternative scenario into the situation and then advise according to the new alternative scenario.

Eoin

Jo King wrote: »

This is not correct. If the boss behaved as described then he broke the contract. The employee is entitled to repudiate the contract for a fundamental breach which we are told happened in this case.
No one at work is obliged to put up with remarks of the kind described by the o/p, however much they might have been made in jest.

The only established fact at the moment is that the OP broke the contract, so it is correct.

Mr. Incognito

The only established fact at the moment is that the OP broke the contract, so it is correct.

The OP's original question was would her employer have grounds to involve solicitors for her walking out of work.

An employment contract is just that. An agreement to perform employment duties. Your employer is entitled, legally, to rely on your representations.
However thankfully we do not have slavery in Ireland. You are perfectly entitled to not perform your employment duties at any time. For this your employer is entitled to damages to be established by the court. The court does not have the power to compel you to work against your will.

However, like all contracted employment law an employee's contract is deemed to be ineffective when the employer has constructively dismissed the employee by providing an office environment that attacks the employee's dignity.

Technically, the employee broke her contract. If she can prove this was on valid ground, i.e discrimination her employer has no come-back.

Jo King

eoin_s wrote: »

The only established fact at the moment is that the OP broke the contract, so it is correct.

That has not benn established as a fact. The employee may have broken what would have been a term of the contract but if the contract had alreasy been breached she would have been entitled to repudiate. She could not have broken a repudiated contract.
A claim to the Employment Equality Authority should bring a decent award in favour of the o/p.

AARRRGH

Jo King wrote: »

A claim to the Employment Equality Authority should bring a decent award in favour of the o/p.

Assuming she's told us the truth, and she can back up her claims...

I hope she comes back with more information.

Mr. Incognito

Assuming she's told us the truth, and she can back up her claims...

Back them up to who?

I don't see a judge and jury under my seat. She asked a question, she got an answer. If I was her I wouldn't bother coming back to be judged either.

Eoin

Jo King wrote: »

That has not benn established as a fact. The employee may have broken what would have been a term of the contract but if the contract had alreasy been breached she would have been entitled to repudiate. She could not have broken a repudiated contract.
A claim to the Employment Equality Authority should bring a decent award in favour of the o/p.

As you say yourself, if the contract has been breached, then perhaps you're correct. But has that been established yet? The OP not working the notice period has been established, which was what I was saying.

fiestaman

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yes, you broke your contract.

Will he follow through with his threats of legal action? Unlikely.

what can they actually do to you????????

Eoin

I think it's all quite irrevelant until the OP shows the basic courtesy to post back here again.

AARRRGH

Jo King wrote: »

A claim to the Employment Equality Authority should bring a decent award in favour of the o/p.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Assuming she's told us the truth, and she can back up her claims...

SetantaL wrote: »

Back them up to who?

I'm assuming the Employment Equality Authority require some kind of proof.

You sure you're a solicitor?

SetantaL wrote: »

If I was her I wouldn't bother coming back to be judged either.

So it's ok to judge the OP's boss based on what she writes, but it's not ok to judge the OP based on what she writes? Seems rather contradictory and unfair...

Mr. Incognito

So it's ok to judge the OP's boss based on what she writes, but it's not ok to judge the OP based on what she writes? Seems rather contradictory and unfair...

OP came here in distressed state asking question on rights. OP got answer. Judging the merits of the case and the OP herself is best left to the professionals not random people on boards. Op does not owe you or your curiosity an answer or an ending, this is not eastenders.

I'm not judging the OP's boss, personally I couldn't give a rats. I'm trying to give her a hand in regard to her rights.

Anyway, this is off topic drivel and I don't know why I'm bothering. Must be this hangover.

Jo King

eoin_s wrote: »

I think it's all quite irrevelant until the OP shows the basic courtesy to post back here again.

The O/p has not been shown basic courtesy here. The o/p has outlined a situation. If accurate it is very serious for the o/p. The o/p will feel extremely demoralised as a result of the situation and is also unemployed and suffering from a loss of confidence. In that situation calling the o/p a liar and trying to make excuses for her boss is crassly insensitive and is making the o/p's situation worse.
I personally have no doubt that the situation described by the o/p can and does happen in the workplace frequently. I am aware of numerous cases of a similiar nature.
This is an internet forum not a tribunal of inquiry. It is unrealistic to think that the facts of any situation can be determined by interrogating posters. posters give the facts as they see them. They are advised accordingly. If they give wrong facts the advice is going to be wrong. Garbage in; garbage out.

AARRRGH

Jo King wrote: »

Garbage in; garbage out.

I agree completely. That was why I am/was trying to tease out more details and/or provide a balanced view.

Like my first post in this topic, I suspect the OP's issue will culminate in nothing.

Eoin

Jo King wrote: »

The O/p has not been shown basic courtesy here. The o/p has outlined a situation. If accurate it is very serious for the o/p. The o/p will feel extremely demoralised as a result of the situation and is also unemployed and suffering from a loss of confidence. In that situation calling the o/p a liar and trying to make excuses for her boss is crassly insensitive and is making the o/p's situation worse.

Well, in my mind that's even more reason for coming back to clarify the details.

As you say, the OP has outlined a situation and if it's accurate then it's serious. If the OP won't reply back, then of course there is going to be lots of speculation. And I do believe it's basic manners to come back to a thread where you were looking for advice.

Jo King

eoin_s wrote: »

Well, in my mind that's even more reason for coming back to clarify the details.

As you say, the OP has outlined a situation and if it's accurate then it's serious. If the OP won't reply back, then of course there is going to be lots of speculation. And I do believe it's basic manners to come back to a thread where you were looking for advice.

If there is one thing worse than being abused ( at work or elsewhere) it is not being believed when complaining about it. Someone makes a post and is immediately queried as to the truth of the statement and is offered some very ill informed and contradictory advice! The o/p has not been given the courtesy of a hearing and has been subjected to the biases and prejudices of replying posters and probably feels worse for having broached the problem in the first place. It is perfectly understandable that the o/p will not come back for interrogation by people trying to turn the situation around to justify their own biases.

AARRRGH

Jo King wrote: »

If there is one thing worse than being abused ( at work or elsewhere) it is not being believed when complaining about it. Someone makes a post and is immediately queried as to the truth of the statement and is offered some very ill informed and contradictory advice! The o/p has not been given the courtesy of a hearing and has been subjected to the biases and prejudices of replying posters and probably feels worse for having broached the problem in the first place. It is perfectly understandable that the o/p will not come back for interrogation by people trying to turn the situation around to justify their own biases.

I do not think there is anything wrong with questioning something which sounds quite bizarre.

Personally, I think it is wrong to exclude the possibility of there being two sides to a story. I understand you (Jo King) work or used to work as some kind of trade union worker so you probably have a more pro-employee attitude than I do, but as someone (me) who has been on both sides to the employee/employer table, I try to keep an open mind to what is true and not true.

Eoin

Jo King wrote: »

If there is one thing worse than being abused ( at work or elsewhere) it is not being believed when complaining about it. Someone makes a post and is immediately queried as to the truth of the statement and is offered some very ill informed and contradictory advice! The o/p has not been given the courtesy of a hearing and has been subjected to the biases and prejudices of replying posters and probably feels worse for having broached the problem in the first place. It is perfectly understandable that the o/p will not come back for interrogation by people trying to turn the situation around to justify their own biases.

If you're going to post on an internet forum looking for advice, but only giving a few details and then not clarifying anything, then you can't really expect anything more. This is just going to around in circles like the rest of the thread...

Jo King

AARRRGH wrote: »

I do not think there is anything wrong with questioning something which sounds quite bizarre.

Personally, I think it is wrong to exclude the possibility of there being two sides to a story. I understand you (Jo King) work or used to work as some kind of trade union worker so you probably have a more pro-employee attitude than I do, but as someone (me) who has been on both sides to the employee/employer table, I try to keep an open mind to what is true and not true.

There are always two sides to the story but it is completely wrong to decide what the other side might be, having heard just the first one! Being open minded means just that. It is nothing to do with being pro or anti employee. You hear one side, taking the facts as they are given, and you give a view. If someone for some reason chooses to post lies what good does it do them? You are never going to hear the other side if there is one. The employer is not likely to come on and start posting.

AARRRGH

Jo King wrote: »

There are always two sides to the story but it is completely wrong to decide what the other side might be, having heard just the first one! Being open minded means just that. It is nothing to do with being pro or anti employee. You hear one side, taking the facts as they are given, and you give a view.

But I haven't decided either side is right or wrong. I am asking, "Could there be a misunderstanding?". We do know the OP is not a native English speaker, is from a different culture, and has a different religious background.

Jo King wrote:

If someone for some reason chooses to post lies what good does it do them? You are never going to hear the other side if there is one. The employer is not likely to come on and start posting.

I'm sure you know that people post biased/exaggerated stories in the hope that people will agree with them.

Because I know so many people have warped views about employers I knew everyone was going to reply saying he is a terrible man who should be taken to court... I'm simply trying to provide some balance by asking if there is more to this story, and (I admit) taking an employers perspective.

Mr. Incognito

We do know the OP is not a native English speaker, is from a different culture, and has a different religious background.

I think you and the employer might be cut from the same cloth.

AARRRGH

SetantaL wrote: »

I think you and the employer might be cut from the same cloth.

Pathetic.

I am going to take your own advice: Never argue with Stupid People, they will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

Mr. Incognito

The OP has been called stupid and harassed based on race and religion and your thoughts are

How do you know he wasn't joking? Seriously, I know lots of people whose humour is based around saying semi-offensive things. After all, you do say he would say this stuff and then laugh.

Maybe you are over-sensitive?

think there are two sides to every story. It really is possible the manager is a funny guy, who pokes fun at people and tries to have a laugh. As we all know, people rarely tell the entire story when they post emotional topics like this one

A group of them might have been joking around about Irish people or whatever, and he may have said well they're better than foreign trash and laughed. That can easily be said in a teasing rather than offensive way

however if it is a cultural thing the guy should not be blamed for a misunderstanding

Assuming she's told us the truth, and she can back up her claims

That was why I am/was trying to tease out more details and/or provide a balanced view.

I'm sure you know that people post biased/exaggerated stories in the hope that people will agree with them

Now normally I would write you off as just another biased person but you work in HR and you are responsible for people coming to you in a distressed state like the OP.

If your first line of approach is that "those foreign" people do not understand the "Irish banter" I would be seriously concered about the calibre of your usefullness as a mediator. I do not want to make this personal at all and in fact it is all off-topic but I do find it disturbing to be honest.

I think people should be given the benefit of the doubt as to know when they are being harrased and not be critiqued to the point where I'm sure the OP would be afraid to come back and post for fear of being written off as an emotional, ex-cultured foreigner.

Even if it was said in jest it was poor taste and any excusing of it is not providing a balanced view but condoning a bigotted one.

AARRRGH

SetantaL wrote: »

If your first line of approach is that "those foreign" people do not understand the "Irish banter" I would be seriously concered about the calibre of your usefullness as a mediator. I do not want to make this personal at all and in fact it is all off-topic but I do find it disturbing to be honest.

No, I said "is it possible there is a misunderstanding" as it makes no sense that an employer would say all those things and then have to threaten legal action against the employee.

There is no point in taking everything on boards.ie at face value as we know there is nearly always more to the story.

Obviously the OP is going to paint her employer in the worst possible light.

Of course, as I have already said, I fully accept the employer could be a total bastard, but doesn't it make more sense to think about all the possibilities?

Life is not black and white.

SetantaL wrote: »

I think people should be given the benefit of the doubt as to know when they are being harrased and not be critiqued to the point where I'm sure the OP would be afraid to come back and post for fear of being written off as an emotional, ex-cultured foreigner.

At no point have I attacked the OP.

You, on the other hand, love dishing out insults.

SetantaL wrote: »

Even if it was said in jest it was poor taste and any excusing of it is not providing a balanced view but condoning a bigotted one.

I agree with the first part of your statement, it might have been jokes in poor taste, but being aware there are jokes of poor taste do not make me have a bigotted opinion.

I am far from being a bigot. If anything, you are coming across as unreasonable and a bit extreme.