It'll depend on how it plays out.May be time to find a new employer ...
No mate a hero for bringing him to task,thought he was untouchable,really quite at the moment cause everyone is taking the mick calling him Teflon. so hopefully it's done the trickSo I take it that you are a pariah now in the workplace.
No mate a hero for bringing him to task,thought he was untouchable,really quite at the moment cause everyone is taking the mick calling him Teflon. so hopefully it's done the trick
All the other sparks want a no confidence in manager but I said that's it now let's see if he does it againIt'll depend on how it plays out.
Presumably there is two factions in the workplace now.
So not pulled up on not providing certs?
No mate that amazed me..sparkies saying how can he disapline anyone nowSo not pulled up on not providing certs?
Absolutely gutted mate,I wanted to teach him a lesson about work ethic but now it looks like I'm wrong.
Hi all,
Just an update he's got no case to answer,our HR phoned the nic & they said it was just bad practice.why do we bother doing a proper job then ??
So carrotted off at the minute.
NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.
NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.
Well, I totally disagree with both yourself @Phoenix, & @Murdoch on the use of LIM on certification.
It is not acceptable in the wording of BS7671, nor the IET guidance.
If there is a test that you cannot do, on a new circuit, then you cannot use LIM.
If there is a test that you cannot do on an existing circuit following modification, then you cannot use LIM, you must, use an alternative way of wording it.
I can see what you are saying @Phoenix in your earlier post, but, LIM is not acceptable, put N/A, N/V or refer to a note by all means, but not LIM, even though it is a limitation.
I get that in the real world there are limitations, but, it is how you document these that needs care.
Enter your email address to join: