Because, erm, the company assisted the Home Office in exposing people breaking the law.
:rolleyes:
Because, erm, the company assisted the Home Office in exposing people breaking the law.
:rolleyes:
Seems terribly unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
The chap was an appalling junkie and quite possibly a womaniser, r. No, I'll have no truck with his sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Oh, very well then. Boycott away and I hope you have a nice day for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
****ty poet, too. And couldn't pronounce 'Juan'.
Well it will be easy for me I am not a fan of their establishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
one has to ask how the **** they employed workers without eligibility in the first place...
Very puzzling. Any ideas?Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Must I remind you of John 8:7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
They actually make and sell hamburgers, so I gather.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
every employer is legally required to do the appropriate checks at the point of recruitment.
Are they admitting they didn't do the checks? Or was it dodgy documentation?
You appear to be confusing New Testament teachings with Eddie Rockets or perhaps Bunsen.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
A common mistake I grant you.
I am not a fan of all this posh hamburger stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
I can make a better won at home*
*god I sound old
Yeah. Everyone knows there's legal requirements and then there's the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
yes, but this is a national chain. Not some dodgy independent under a railway arch...
Same difference, imo. Probably even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG