Latest posts:
Rate this!
Joanne Sambrook
Member - 6 posts
I was offered a fab job by a major house builder two weeks before Christmas then - handed my notice in at the Estate Agents I was working at, had my leaving party and prezzie then - having heard nothing from my new Employer chased them up for my start-up information. I was then told (with barely an apology that the person who offered me the job had no jurisdiction to do so. I was so young that I just accepted this and had a horrible Christmas worrying about paying rent, bills and wrapping paper...it's not just the fact that your confidence is undermined by what actually amounts to the total incompetence by a company and their HR procedures (which are often appalling) but the fact that you have stopped job hunting and let other lucrative interviews pass by. Live and learn and never accept that ANYTHING is sorted - whether job, "sold" on a house - or all parties have signed on the dotted line and received the other parties papers!
Rate this!
Joanne Sambrook
Member - 6 posts
Wimpey burger bars failed a few years ago and I can't believe that Wimpey Construction has taken so long to address the 21st Century - they are a long way behind the majority of house builders (and maybe deservedly so!) PS for those that don't recognise tongue-in-cheek humour - YES!! I do know that Wimpey burger bars and Wimpey Homes are different co s!
Rate this!
Joanne Sambrook
Member - 6 posts
A good school friend of mine contracted cancer of the knee at the age of 15 knee. 2 years after half her leg had been amputated the cancer seconded in one of her lungs. No-one in her family had ever smoked, she was at the time in tip top physical shape being a natural athlete excelling in tennis and hockey and certainly had no contact with asbestos - I wonder who she could sue and for what contributing circumstances.
Yes this company was obviously negligent in not informing their employees of the associated risks of the materials he was working with and were rightfully fined for their lack of a duty of care BUT not all lung cancer is caused by smoking or asbestos - who's to say that the smoking hadn't contributed solely in this case. I wonder whether there are more cases of smoking related cancer or asbestos related cancer - that's the line of defence I would have employed if defending the case. Roy Castle always blamed smokers for his cancer - surely genes should also be considered in any human condition - I blame the parents!
Rate this!
Joanne Sambrook
Member - 6 posts
Is it just Fire Safety (assume residential?) or healthnsafety - such as - how safe are the Blackpool Rides???!
Rate this!
Joanne Sambrook
Member - 6 posts
Maybe he should try slipping on a banana skin next time?...Let's hope the judge is a practical one who can see beyond the usual excuse for elfin safety..
Rate this!
Joanne Sambrook
Member - 6 posts
my understanding would be :
1. If you do not have any wheelchair users or others who need to use the disabled toilets (regardless of which floor level) employed at the moment then this would not be illegal. If you consequently employed a wheel chair user or other disabled toilet user in the near or far future see point no2.
2. if you have wheelchair users or others who would need to use the disabled toilets (on any level) currently employed by the company - and they have no access to or no need to access the ground floor of the office block in the normal course of their business you are entitled to use the disabled toilet for storage if the other disabled facilities are reasonably easily accessable and available.
3.if you have wheelchair users or others who need to use the disabled toilets (on any level) currently employed by the company - and they need access to and/or utilise/work on or around the ground floor of the office block in the normal course of their business then I would suggest you discuss with them how they feel about using the toilet for the short-term storage and what effect it would have on them. If they feel that being on the ground floor and having to travel to the next floor could easily compromise their privacy and welfare (i.e it takes too long to get there!) then you would be wise to consider an alternative - especially if able users do not have to travel the same distance in the same situation - i.e. if you are using the disabled toilet for storage as well as the non-disabled toilet for storage then you are not compromising the ACCESS FOR ALL objective of the Act - but if you are just blocking the disabled toilet on the ground floor and not the abled toilet then you could be seen to be putting your disabled users at a disadvantage to the abled users.
Hope this helps
Bo S
0 (0)
