A born leader who doesn't keep his head down

09-05-2012 11:09pm #1

Linkage

Start reading from about paragraph 2.1 onwards, though paragraph 2.12 is a cracker....

For mobile users:

2.12. The complainant submitted that the alleged indecent exposure incident occurred on 25 August 2011. He had spent the previous night in hospital. The complainant had been working alone in his section in the afternoon. As he had been removed from phone duty due to alleged inappropriate conduct the complainant became irritated by '5 phones hopping'. He rang his manager to ask him to answer the phones and when the manager refused, the complainant had a disagreement with his manager. The first part of the exchange took place in the manager's office and later, after the manager had followed the complainant to the complainant's section, the complainant's trousers accidently fell down while he was leaning over to correct a blind. This mishap resulted in a completely accidental exposure of the complainant's bare buttocks. The complainant submitted that he had forgotten to wear underpants that day due to his stay in hospital. The complainant denied that he made any disparaging remarks about the manager to him or that he scratched his behind while standing there with his nether region exposed. The exposure, he claimed, was the responsibility of the respondent who had not instructed the complainant to wear undergarments despite his manager knowing that the complainant had omitted to wear his foundation wear. The complainant accepted that he did not follow his manager's instructions to go home after the incident. The complainant had not apologised to his manager about this incident as he believed that there was nothing to apologise about and that, in any case, the manager had not told him that he ought to apologise. The complainant also pointed out that the manager had no witnesses to this event

Nodin · 09-05-2012 11:29pm

3.5.

The respondent denied that the complainant had established facts from which an inference of disability discrimination could be drawn. The complainant has claimed both in his written submissions and at the hearing that the treatment that has been meted out has been because he is a 'Kerry supporter', because he has criticised several managers of lying and incompetence and because of 'protectionist cronyism'.