Gross Negligence?? Is this fair???

daphbec

Hi there

I was wondering if anyone could advise me. My OH has a hearing next week as he has been accused of gross negligence. He acknowledges that he did make accidental mistake however is going to argue the details of the accusation. They claim that this mistake cost the business a potential £11000. At the hearing is he able to argue the fact that nearly a year ago another member of staff (who happens to be the bosses son) blaitantly didn't complete an assigned task which potentially cost the business £5000 and no action was taken. In a conversation between the boss and my OH who is manager it was stated that if he weren't their son they would have sacked him!! My partner has e-mails confirming that this task wasn't completed and the majority of staff were aware of this and that the person in question had gone on a 'bender'. Should he leave this information incase he needs to appeal, or maybe this has no relevance?
Any thoughts would be greatly recieved, both constructive and critical.......although constructive would be better, he just wants to be prepared!!!

Thanks all.

Oldernotwiser

Is he hoping to argue that, although he committed the offence, the same thing had been done before (by the boss's son) with no action being taken? If that's the case I doubt that he'll be successful, however unfair it may seem.

daphbec

But in the staff handbook a refusal to carry out of duties or simple instructions comes under 'Gross misconduct' . Their son was a paid member of staff on the payroll at the time. So what's good for one isn't for another just because of blood? In Business and law does this stand up to be fair?.

cazziebo

You are asking the question "is it fair?" The answer is obviously it isn't fair that one employee should be treated differently from another.

However, in this case, legally and contractually, it's irrelevant. It is your OH who is being disciplined for a misdemeanour. What happened a year ago involving another employee is not relevant.

Your OH acknowledges he made an error which cost the company a material loss. He should focus on recognising the error, apologising for the loss to the company, and lessons learned that will prevent any such errors happening in future. He should also be well acquainted with the company's disciplinary policy and procedures. (If it does get to tribunal, most cases are won not on fairness or otherwise, but on lack of following correct procedure)

Bringing up another person's case will not help his situation, unfair as that may seem.

Oldernotwiser

daphbec wrote: »

But in the staff handbook a refusal to carry out of duties or simple instructions comes under 'Gross misconduct' . Their son was a paid member of staff on the payroll at the time. So what's good for one isn't for another just because of blood? In Business and law does this stand up to be fair?.

You really musn't get side tracked by this issue; what another member of staff has done is irrelevant, family or not. Family businesses are a law unto themselves in these sort of ways, although obviously it seems unfair to you.

darich

Totally agree with Cazziebo.

I'd also add that does the cost of the mistake have any relevance? I wouldn't have thought so. I'm fairly certain that your employee handbook won't have a scale where if the error/misconduct costs a certain amount then a predetermined punishment is handed out.
The hand book will say what is misconduct and what the punishment is likely to be for that misconduct. It won't mention the cost of the error.
Gross misconduct could cost the company £0 but still be a dismissable offence....but a genuine mistake while not misconduct could be costly.

aj2703

I would have thought that if the bosses son comitted the same offence and no action was taken a presidence would have been set. After all you are ment to treat all employees in the workplace with fairness and equality no matter who they are. OP i would seek further advice from the CAB if i were you as i can't see how they can let one person off with no action (even if it was the bosses son) and not the other.

moongarden

There is no precedence in this case. An employment tribunal will only look at the facts relating to daphbec's OH's case.

Daphbec: "REFUSAL to carry out ..." did your OH refuse to carry out the instruction or did he forget? I suspect more likely he forgot. Therefore this is not REFUSAL and does not constitute gross misconduct.

So, a course of appeal at an employment tribunal would be that the employer should have systems in place to ensure £11k's worth of work does not just rest on the chances of one person remembering. e.g. when I delegate a task of that value I check up every couple of days to see how it is going.

Forget the other kid. Who said life had to be fair anyway?

Rockporkchop

Mentioning the mistake made by the boss's son will really get their backs up. Your OH should just be repentant and apologetic and try to ensure them that the mistake will not happen again.

How does your OH know what happened in the boss's son's case? His boss could have personally paid for the loss, or the son could have been asked to pay for the mistake himself, or be on probation for the mistake. You never know what goes on behind closed doors.

Your OH has cocked up and he should be man enough to own up to this error and try to sort it out himself, without dragging other people into it.

UnoriginalGuy_2

What does the boss's son have to do with this?
If your SO did what they said he did then he might be in trouble. Showing that other people have "got away with it" in the past is totally irrelevant as long as they made it clear that it was in breach of his contract/terms.

LittleVoice

daphbec wrote: »

But in the staff handbook a refusal to carry out of duties or simple instructions comes under 'Gross misconduct' ..

So is your OH being accused of refusal to carry out duties/simple instructions or, as your OP said, "gross negligence"?

I would expect that an admitted "accidental mistake" could be "gross negligence" in certain circumstances - but that is not the same thing as refusing to do something which is a deliberate act.