Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

sexyeyes83

Thanks for your reply rob.

Another quick question I have is regarding the suspicion of theft why would an employer dismiss under SOSR (some other substantial reason) rather then use gross misconduct?

robredz

Theft in itself is gross misconduct, as well as criminal whether the goods are the employers or owned by someone owed a duty of care by the employer/employee, oreven a random anybody. The fact the police were interested in you whether or not you were guilty probably made them decide get rid now and argue later. They almost seem to read the same textbook as the Anihilator imho. Others will know more.

Pound

You might want to change your Facebook privacy settings if you haven't already.

DVardysShadow

sexyeyes83 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply rob.

Another quick question I have is regarding the suspicion of theft why would an employer dismiss under SOSR (some other substantial reason) rather then use gross misconduct?

I would say that they could not use the theft as gross misconduct against you, as they could have come severely unstuck later, if as it turned out, you were innocent.

But they could use the potential loss of reputation from your continued employment as SOSR with less potential for comeback. I should imagine that this kind of accusation is not uncommon in the care industry, so this will be a fairly well trodden path on the employers side

sexyeyes83

Pound wrote: »

You might want to change your Facebook privacy settings if you haven't already.

I had two managers as friend and totally forgot they were on my friends list. Needless to say I have now deleted them!

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I would say that they could not use the theft as gross misconduct against you, as they could have come severely unstuck later, if as it turned out, you were innocent.

But they could use the potential loss of reputation from your continued employment as SOSR with less potential for comeback. I should imagine that this kind of accusation is not uncommon in the care industry, so this will be a fairly well trodden path on the employers side

Thanks DV. Ive been searching google all night to find more information, but not that much is coming back with similar circumstances.

For gross misconduct I found this:

In assessing the fairness of a conduct dismissal an employment tribunal may consider:

• did the employer genuinely believe that the employee was guilty of the offence?
• were there reasonable grounds for holding that belief following a reasonable investigation?
• was there a proper and fair disciplinary hearing?
• did the employer have sufficient regard to the employees disciplinary record and length of service?
• has the employer been consistent in how it has dealt with genuinely similar cases in the past?
• were alternatives to dismissal considered?
• was dismissal within a reasonable range of responses to the misconduct complained of or was it too harsh?

But there is nothing at all listed under SOSR - so im presuming they would not have to meet the same criteria?

Everything I find for theft relates to gross misconduct. SOSR seems to throw back results such as:

(i) Business re-organisation falling short of redundancy
(ii) The need to impose a restraint of trade clause
(iii) The need to impose a change in terms and conditions of employment

sexyeyes83

Just been going back through my letters. The letter I received adking me to attend the disciplinary dated the 2nd June states

"You are advised that if the allegations are believed to be proven, it will be considered Gross Misconduct under Company Disciplnary Rules and your employment may be summarily terminated"

In the letter I received dated the 19th June it just says I was dimissed stating no actual reason.

Its not until I receive a letter dated the 22nd September regarding the outcome of my appeal does it mention -

"The hearing had been arranged to consider your appeal against the decision to dismiss you on the grounds of "Some Other Substantial Reason" (SOSR), namely that given the nature of the industry we are involved in, and the vulnerability of clients, we could not take the risk of allowing you to go back to work as a carer when suspicions existed about your involvement in thefts from clients"

dacouch

It might be worth showing the comments they have from the police officer to the actual police officer. You may find they have miss out vital words such as "if she had stolen it she may have passed it on" etc. If this is the case a statement from the Police Officer (Who is regarded as a professional witness) could help your case

robredz

Quote:
"The hearing had been arranged to consider your appeal against the decision to dismiss you on the grounds of "Some Other Substantial Reason" (SOSR), namely that given the nature of the industry we are involved in, and the vulnerability of clients, we could not take the risk of allowing you to go back to work as a carer when suspicions existed about your involvement in thefts from clients"

So they have believed the old bill had something on you and just "got rid", they would then try to justify that they had reasonable grounds to dismiss, due to police investigation, fact is it blew up in their face double check everything!!!!!

Anihilator

robredz wrote: »

Quote:
"The hearing had been arranged to consider your appeal against the decision to dismiss you on the grounds of "Some Other Substantial Reason" (SOSR), namely that given the nature of the industry we are involved in, and the vulnerability of clients, we could not take the risk of allowing you to go back to work as a carer when suspicions existed about your involvement in thefts from clients"

So they have believed the old bill had something on you and just "got rid", they would then try to justify that they had reasonable grounds to dismiss, due to police investigation, fact is it blew up in their face double check everything!!!!!

Do you not think it would have been grossly neglient of the care provider to continue to use a care worker to support the vulnerable who had multiple allegations of theft against them and whom the investigating officer had suggested he felt was guilty of the crime?

I think its hard to say they didnt have reasonable grounds to feel the OP wasnt fit to continue to provide care.

robredz

Anihilator wrote: »

Do you not think it would have been grossly neglient of the care provider to continue to use a care worker to support the vulnerable who had multiple allegations of theft against them and whom the investigating officer had suggested he felt was guilty of the crime?

I think its hard to say they didnt have reasonable grounds to feel the OP wasnt fit to continue to provide care.

That is what suspension is for to allow investigations to be carried out. When OP was dismissed police were still bumbling on, so employer chanced it and got rid. Their action may have seemed right at the time, but when police found nothing, coupled with other actions by employer in their handling of the case, the dismissal was unfair.