Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a job do this

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,439 ✭✭✭cml387


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


  • Options
    #34
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Studiostichup
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭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


  • Options
    #36
    porsche boy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Studiostichup
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭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 ?


  • Options
    #41
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    1hnr79jr65
    Registered Users Posts: 916 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    ItsLikeThis
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭ItsLikeThis


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


  • Options
    #46
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    ItsLikeThis
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭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."


  • Options
    #49
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    jamesbere
    Registered Users Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #53
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #54
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #55
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,078 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?


  • Options
    #56
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #57
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,078 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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


  • Options
    #58
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #59
    Studiostichup
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭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


  • Options
    #60
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Studiostichup wrote: »
    Can a job delete footage regarding an incident
    Do you know said footage existed when you made the claim?


Advertisement