Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

DVardysShadow · 19 June 2011 at 8:40PM

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I am sorry if i appear unduly harsh but accessing !!!!!! at work is gross misconduct and therefore the employer is quite justified to dismiss.

The logic

Accessing !!!!!! at work is gross misconduct
Gross misconduct warrants dismissal
OP's OH accessed !!!!!!
Therefore OP's OH should be dismissed

But it begins to come unstitched at point 1. It is not a fact that accessing !!!!!! is gross misconduct. That is an opinion. For the record, by and large, I support it as an opinion, but not as a fact.

And at point 2, I don't think that it is automatic that gross misconduct should lead to dismissal on a first offence.

As there are fewer jobs around at the moment, TQ. I would expect to see your opinion upheld more often in fact. But when the economy was up and when it is back up again, I would expect to see far more decisions go against your opinion here. This is what leaves a nasty taste - the feeling that what might happen in a case of someone viewing !!!!!! at work has very little to do with a moral position an employer wants to uphold and far more to do with whether it suits the employer to kick someone out.

pjcee · 19 June 2011 at 8:43PM

reports were collected last year sep to nov i think then dec to jan, and no he was not suspended, got a letter april telling him that he would be investigated, was at work all through, and review was friday. he was only told 3 weeks ago the case would be treated as gross misconduct, before that it was assumed that under his current employers rules it would only be misconduct. it took two weeks to track down a union rep so that only had a week to prepare case, all of which was ignored anywway.

the 'sackable' element was in the second report, if they had brought him to his senses then all this might not have happened. and if he had done like everyone else and gone sick when he should have, but that just sour grapes i guess

Torry_Quine · 19 June 2011 at 8:49PM

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The logic
Accessing !!!!!! at work is gross misconduct

Gross misconduct warrants dismissal

OP's OH accessed !!!!!!

Therefore OP's OH should be dismissed

But it begins to come unstitched at point 1. It is not a fact that accessing !!!!!! is gross misconduct. That is an opinion. For the record, by and large, I support it as an opinion, but not as a fact.

And at point 2, I don't think that it is automatic that gross misconduct should lead to dismissal on a first offence.

As there are fewer jobs around at the moment, TQ. I would expect to see your opinion upheld more often in fact. But when the economy was up and when it is back up again, I would expect to see far more decisions go against your opinion here. This is what leaves a nasty taste - the feeling that what might happen in a case of someone viewing !!!!!! at work has very little to do with a moral position an employer wants to uphold and far more to do with whether it suits the employer to kick someone out.

I am surprised that accessing !!!!!! at work isn't seen as gross misconduct and worthy of dismissal by some.

pjcee wrote: »

reports were collected last year sep to nov i think then dec to jan, and no he was not suspended, got a letter april telling him that he would be investigated, was at work all through, and review was friday. he was only told 3 weeks ago the case would be treated as gross misconduct, before that it was assumed that under his current employers rules it would only be misconduct. it took two weeks to track down a union rep so that only had a week to prepare case, all of which was ignored anywway.

the 'sackable' element was in the second report, if they had brought him to his senses then all this might not have happened. and if he had done like everyone else and gone sick when he should have, but that just sour grapes i guess

So this happened several months ago. I hope that he is now receiving medical help. It must have been very hard working while this was hanging over him and being depressed.

SarEl · 19 June 2011 at 8:51PM

Aha - a glimmer. But ONLY a glimmer. They knew he was doing this for three months. And said nor did anything? And knowing it and not having said anything, they went back again to see if he was still doing it? Now that might make a tribunal sit up and think? Can you confirm this?

Horace · 19 June 2011 at 9:01PM

As an ex branch secretary of one of the UK's biggest unions - I know that that other cases cannot be referred to when appeals are made following dismissal. So the union rep has got it wrong he/she cannot refer to any precedents that the employer may have set regarding other cases of computer mis-use.

Your OH's case should now be handled by a full time rep based within the regional office - if not then he should ask that his case be referred if it hasnt already.

Employers take a very dim view of people looking at websites that they are not supposed to and this is why they class it as gross misconduct - viewing !!!!!! is a huge no no. One would hope that the employer boosts their computer security by blocking access to such sites where !!!!!! can be viewed freely.

pjcee · 19 June 2011 at 9:02PM

no not yet and yes it was how he managed to appear okish (a bit down) but actually petrifed of what was going to happen AND still do his job i do not know, nor does he. its part of his problem, he just puts bits of his life in differnet boxes and the one with all the gremlins in he keeps to himself - through misguided loyalty and not wanting to hurt me (spades in that now). how he hid it all this time i just do not know, but he has had physical symptoms of stress for months and would not go to docs (awful experieces with medical profession resulted in horrible deaths of both his parents, and one of mine, so we both have big fear of doctors). all this stuff rolls up into one big heap of C**p i hope no-one else on here has to go through.

DVardysShadow · 19 June 2011 at 9:04PM

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I am surprised that accessing !!!!!! at work isn't seen as gross misconduct and worthy of dismissal by some.

No doubt there are some around who would be surprised that picking your nose at work isn't seen as gross misconduct and worthy of dismissal.

You see, your issue here is that you think it is a fact that it is gross misconduct. It is an opinion. It is not illegal to view !!!!!! or to pick your nose at home. So you do need to get the brain out of the box and justify it as an opinion rather than bowl along as though it were a fact.

But the thing I think you should find most disturbing is that even if your view is upheld by employers now, it won't be upheld as soon as there is a healthy employment market. In other words, gratified though you might be at a sacking in this case, the employers will not whole heartedly support the moral position, rather. they will use it as a pretext.

pjcee · 19 June 2011 at 9:14PM

I will say once more - the rep is full time, is very experienced, has been told by rewiew panel he can have sight of whatever this 'precidence' stuff is (they squirmed when asked but said yes), and will respond accordingly, i presume in a proper and correct way.

in the depts i am talking about, for one of them viewing the images that he looked at would have only been treated as MISCONDUCT (not sackable), in the other G Misconduct, but the instances of anyone being sacked for a first offence of this nature almost do not exist, and they are either given a written warning or a downgrade.

so everyone, please stop saying that for every govt dept what he did is sackable, its not, and and even when it Gross misconduct it does not mean automatic dismissal. whatever happens to OH, you all saying that it is automatic sacking is not true. which is why i am trying to do what i can so that he is at least treated fairly, if there is any scope for that.

pjcee · 19 June 2011 at 9:22PM

hello sarEL

i think the way this was done (cant ask OH) is that the system makes automatic record of internet usage - times and sites, and he triggered the radar. there are two seperate reports, one between sept to dec then a gap (not sure how long) and then the second report. the second one was done as a deliberate check, so yes they allowed him to do it.

pjcee · 19 June 2011 at 9:25PM

sorry getting a bit rambly now, this was raised by at submission for pre-hearing and said at hearing but there was no comment on either

Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free