nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a job do this

Studiostichup

Can a job delete footage regarding an incident
Before you get to see it
And sack you

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

runawaybishop

Studiostichup wrote: »

They did tamper
They deleted it but before hand took a copy to a phone and recorded what only the wanted me to see.
I asked to see from 7pm at the time of incident
But they produce this phone footage that only shows from 7:10pm

Forget about the CCTV. If it doesn't support their case it's not a surprise it was deleted. Nothing you can do about it

Figure out how to prove the witness is lying.

cml387

What has your union rep said?
It seems as if he didn't do much for you if you were fired.

punisher5112

I've been in similar where footage was produced 20 minutes after the fact and I was still pursued by the Gardai.

This was all over another road user and a complaint.

I had witnesses stating I done nothing but was still pursued.

Studiostichup

punisher5112 wrote: »

That's not what I said I'm coming across on your side here.

I'm stating the fact it's not the original footage so can not be used as it can, has or may well have been altered.

Oh i totally see you point
I was just stating they did. Was not taking a snap at you your advice has been very helpful
And im very greatfull sorry if my comment cane across defensive

porsche boy

Don't know if it's been said as I didn't read all comments.

Arrange a meeting with a solicitor or free legal aid. If you want to go further make a complaint to WRC, you will find report forms on their website. Proper legal advice is what's needed here.

punisher5112

Op have you looked for employment elsewhere for the time being?

This could take quite some time so be prepared for the long haul/wait.

I hope it all works out for you and just keep a record of anything and everything.

jimmycrackcorm

runawaybishop wrote:

Forget about the CCTV. If it doesn't support their case it's not a surprise it was deleted. Nothing you can do about it

The CCTV is important because they are hiding the facts.
Nearly ask CCTV systems keep recordings for a month so the fact it was deleted so quickly and only shown after the actual incident would be fix grounds to contest.

Op, what did they say when you asked for video for 10 minutes before?

runawaybishop

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The CCTV is important because they are hiding the facts.
Nearly ask CCTV systems keep recordings for a month so the fact it was deleted so quickly and only shown after the actual incident would be fix grounds to contest.

Op, what did they say when you asked for video for 10 minutes before?

Contest want? They are under no obligation to keep footage. If they have a witness they do not need footage.

Studiostichup

runawaybishop wrote: »

Contest want? They are under no obligation to keep footage. If they have a witness they do not need footage.

Yes they have a witness but the cctv would show the witness is lying this is why they deleted it. Does this hold no ground ?

runawaybishop

Studiostichup wrote: »

Yes they have a witness but the cctv would show the witness is lying this is why they deleted it. Does this hold no ground ?

Nope, you can't prove that's why it was deleted. Can you prove the witness is lying some other way?

1hnr79jr65

OP, this sounds like a very suspicious issue what your former company have done from what you said, there are some that support your side and there are folks here who are so skeptical and negative about your situation that it may cause confusion or wrong actions to be taken.

My advice is to ask a mod to close this thread, use your union rep and legal adviser ONLY for the purposes of this case to ensure you are getting the correct inputs and direction of how to manage your issue.

Use these people and focus on this task and good luck with your case.

runawaybishop

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

OP, this sounds like a very suspicious issue what your former company have done from what you said, there are some that support your side and there are folks here who are so skeptical and negative about your situation that it may cause confusion or wrong actions to be taken.

My advice is to ask a mod to close this thread, use your union rep and legal adviser ONLY for the purposes of this case to ensure you are getting the correct inputs and direction of how to manage your issue.

Use these people and focus on this task and good luck with your case.

Union rep wasn't much use if they didn't even go to the appeal with the op.

Snotty

Studiostichup wrote: »

Yes they have a witness but the cctv would show the witness is lying this is why they deleted it. Does this hold no ground ?

The cctv is deleted, alot harder to prove the cctv footage WAS deleted because someone is lying, all we know if it's gone now. You are connecting the two things, but that's doesn't prove anything.

There is no regulation around cctv being retained in a normal workplace. Our system used to only record 48 hours, it depended on the size of the hard drive and as they were motion sensor, the busier the area, the less timescale that would be recorded.

Couple of questions need to be answered, what is the normal retention of footage? If its 24 hours, then you have no argument.
How is footage removed from the system, is it exported to a disk and does someone know how to do that? Before I started in my current job, the boss used to get the cctv installer out to export any footage needed, so if he needed something non critical, he'd just record it off the screen using his phone.

ItsLikeThis

Surely there is data protection issues regarding recording cctv footage from a mobile phone?

Snotty

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

Surely there is data protection issues regarding recording cctv footage from a mobile phone?

Why is that an issue? private property we are assuming.

Kristopherus

Snotty wrote: »

Why is that an issue? private property we are assuming.

If its a workplace,as in factory, there is an issue. And, since earlier this year, there may be GDPR issues as well.

ItsLikeThis

From dataprotection.ie; "The storage medium should be stored in a secure environment with a log of access kept. Access should be restricted to authorised personnel."

Snotty

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

From dataprotection.ie; "The storage medium should be stored in a secure environment with a log of access kept. Access should be restricted to authorised personnel."

We are assuming the OP asked to see it, they allowed him to view a video copy which is correct, not sure the GDRP goes as far as covering the distribution system. Why is a recording on a phone different that a zip file. There is other questions like who else is in the video that was viewed, blurred faces and all that.
I'm not saying what they did was 100% correct, but a breach of GDPR doesn't mean the OP was unfairly dismissed.
The retention period is the biggest question here.

jamesbere

What I can't understand is why footage was shown to op that is 10 mins after the incident. That makes no sense whatsoever.

You need to find out from detail how recordings are retained in the company and why you were shown footage from a pho e after the incident which is proving your innocent.

A solicitors letter is the best way to go, something sounds suspicious here. I definitely think you have a case.

Sir Oxman

jamesbere wrote: »

What I can't understand is why footage was shown to op that is 10 mins after the incident. That makes no sense whatsoever.

You need to find out from detail how recordings are retained in the company and why you were shown footage from a pho e after the incident which is proving your innocent.

A solicitors letter is the best way to go, something sounds suspicious here. I definitely think you have a case.

I agree, the 10 minutes after is indicative of tampering/covering up unless by some miracle the retention period of 24hr/48hr/a week etc ends exactly at 1910hrs
the method of recording it from the screen on mobile phone is dodgy as well

OP, I agree with the above suggestion - go to see an experienced employment representative or employment solicitor.
Yes, it will cost (usually a consult fee and if it goes to WRC a percentage of your award if won) but believe me in a situation where you have lost your job unfairly, you will be full of emotion and employment law and the WRC requires a very level fact based logical head, the WRC is not interested in emotion or distress.

It's difficult to pick yourself back up from something like this but apply for other employment to mitigate your circumstances and keep records of all that you do in this regard.

Do not let this go, bring a case against them.

Snotty

We are only hearing one side of the story.

The OP is sacked based on what happened 10 minutes later, we can naturally assume something did happen at this time and that is why it was shown.

The op is saying something also happened 10 minutes previous and this will exonerate him. Devil's advocate here, but the employers is aware of the earlier incident but its the one 10 minutes later that he is being dismissed on.

OP is more than welcome to provide more details, but if a legal case is going to be taken, he's probably best not to discuss it here.

Sir Oxman

Snotty wrote: »

We are only hearing one side of the story.

The OP is sacked based on what happened 10 minutes later, we can naturally assume something did happen at this time and that is why it was shown.

The op is saying something also happened 10 minutes previous and this will exonerate him. Devil's advocate here, but the employers is aware of the earlier incident but its the one 10 minutes later that he is being dismissed on.

OP is more than welcome to provide more details, but if a legal case is going to be taken, he's probably best not to discuss it here.

Of course we are.
We should take the OP at his word and work from there.
I think you've got the tinmeline wrong by the way - the alleged incident happened 10 mins before not after - the footage rerecorded on a mobile phone doesn't show the alleged incident.
He had to badger them to show any footage afaik

Snotty

Yeah I'm stating the obvious, but point remains, we can take everything at face value or we can make some vague assumptions based on what we do know. Example, we do know the employer showed video of 10 minutes later, maybe this video shows something, I don't think it's in the relims of fantasy to think this was blank cctv footage.
It's just not what the OP wanted, but maybe it is more relevant to the employer and the dismisal case.

[Deleted User]

Were staff aware of the CCTV cameras? Were there notices showing the cameras? Were staff informed of the purpose of the CCTV and how the data would be stored?

Snotty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Were staff aware of the CCTV cameras? Were there notices showing the cameras? Were staff informed of the purpose of the CCTV and how the data would be stored?

All good questions, but zero relevants to this unfair dismissal case

[Deleted User]

Snotty wrote: »

All good questions, but zero relevants to this unfair dismissal case

WRC would take a dim view of evidence collected using illegal cameras

Snotty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

WRC would take a dim view of evidence collected using illegal cameras

But it the witness that is the case, the cctv is deleted. Id agree if the employer was using the cctv, but that is not the case.

Studiostichup

Snotty wrote: »

But it the witness that is the case, the cctv is deleted. Id agree if the employer was using the cctv, but that is not the case.

Firstly id like to thank everyone who gave there opinion on my situation
Thank you very much
Snotty you are correct they did not use the cctv to sack me which was probably smart by them
But i had asked from the very start to see it as it wouldnt lie.
They took the time to record 10 mins after event
But not the time i requested on paper atleast 5 times
They didnt use cctv but i relied on it to prove me right
This is the most screcthy situation ever
I know i was set up that is all i can say and it really hard at the minute
I know the statement is lies but they delete the only thing to prove that

BattleCorp

Snotty wrote: »

All good questions, but zero relevants to this unfair dismissal case

If the footage was dodgy and used as part of the disciplinary process, then it has lots to do with this unfair dismissal case.

The fact that it was shown to the OP leads me to believe that it was used as part of the process. It may have been immaterial overall, but the fact that they showed it to him means that it is relevant.

the_syco

Studiostichup wrote: »

Can a job delete footage regarding an incident

Do you know said footage existed when you made the claim?