Disciplinary Help!!!

patman99

OP, you state your oh can't look for, or undertake any work whilst under suspension. WRONG, as long as he is not required to turn-up for work, then there is nothing stopping him doing some temp work. There is also no law stating that he can't job hunt when still employed either.

As for sleeping on the job, at one major UK airport they have 2 guards on the gate at night, and when the supervisor goes home, the guards take it in turns to sleep for half the shift.

prosaver

patman99 wrote: »

OP, you state your oh can't look for, or undertake any work whilst under suspension. WRONG, as long as he is not required to turn-up for work, then there is nothing stopping him doing some temp work. There is also no law stating that he can't job hunt when still employed either.

As for sleeping on the job, at one major UK airport they have 2 guards on the gate at night, and when the supervisor goes home, the guards take it in turns to sleep for half the shift.

he should try and get a job in the fire brigade :rotfl::rotfl:

stephbond89

Actually yes he has started getting other side affects too- the anti depressants seem to be stopping working for him all together, hence why he has an appointment with his doctor. We were never the ones who mentioned the medication to his doctor- we told him our circumstances, he said it was probably a lot to do with our new baby, of course it is, though Im the mother who is getting up all night with the baby whilst my husband sleeps through it and I'M not exhausted, neither was I that weekend when she was ill. He said it is also maybe to do with his hours, though his body sghould be well used to it by now. But it was his doctor who said it is his medication causing the drowsiness and that he should maybe consider changing his medication, which he has a medication review for next week.

As for the 10%, that was 10% of 100 people, sorry I didnt make that clear in the post. it was 1-10 people not percent in 100 people. I obviously got confused when typing.

And yes I do believe that after a leave of 6 weeks that he should have been given the REQUIRRED health check which they are meant to be given every mnonth ANYWAY to ensure he was still fit for work, considering he was away from such long working shifts for such a long time. No he wasnt sick, I was ill before I gave birth to my daughter, and was in a slow labour for two weeks so his employers told him he could take holidays for the remainder of my pregnancy and 2 weeks after. I dont think if you have been away from work a week and work 9-5 you shoudl be eased back into it no, but 6 weeks is a long time to be away frmo the 15 hiour night shifts, he was eased into them in the first place when he first took the job.

As for leaving the site unsecured, are y0u honestly saying if my husband had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol they should have left him there too?! The Supervisors are there to hold the fort on sites with these types of emergencies. if the rule is you are classing something as gross misconuct you must suspend whilst investigating otherwise you may be seen as saying the employee is fit for work which wouldnt hold up in court (this actually happened to a security guard my mother knows and he told me his story), then clearly by allowing him to stay for the remainder of his shift is saying he is fit for work. If he had fallen asleep AGAIN and was caught AGAIN he would have been in even more trouble BUT he should have been sent home for been unfit for work as he was so exhausted.

As for the person who said he can work whilst suspended, it actually states in his terms of employment that:

"While employed by the Company you will not do any security work for or engage directly or indirectly any other security business, whether as an employee or on your own account or throgh a company or in partnership with anyone else".

Whilst de allocated from shifts, he is still employed by his company.

Anyway, today he has had a call from his boss and he is NOT fired luckily, but he has been removed from the site he was on, which we were more than expecting, and has now been given a mobile job, meaning he can be phoned up every day and given a shift or not given a shift depending what is available. Not ideal, btu until a permanent site can be found, its fine for us. Just a case of seeing what we mgiht be entitled to money wise whilst on such low wages.

Thanks for the help from most of the people on the thread, most help I got was helpful, and put my mind at rest at the least, and stopped me looking a prat if he had been fired and he had gone in all guns blazing telling his boss this that and the other was illegal when in fact it wasnt. So thanks for that!

williacg

It's great news that he wasn't sacked, go out and celebrate.

Torry_Quine

I'm really pleased that it worked out for you. I'm sure it's given you both quite a shock but at least it was sorted quickly.

steve1980

prosaver wrote: »

Originally Posted by steve1980
As he works for a security company he would have had to tick a box saying that he is willing to work over X amount of hours.
wrong ..
it the employers responsibility.. :beer: sorry its the law.
I am hnc qualified in health and safety
A blind man could tick a box saying he could work on scaffolding .. Under health and safety law ...the employer should not let him work (duty of care).
everyone should remember this when you go to work.
Under health and safety law ...the employer should not let him work (duty of care).
everyone all together now.....
'Under health and safety law ...the employer should not let him work (duty of care).'

I am hnc qualified in health and safety......................... it was part of my course :beer:

Do you work for a security companies HR department?

As I DO work for a security company I can assure that this is part of the contract. Unless you tick this box then no security company will take you on.

Googlewhacker

I'm glad to hear it all is well at the end, did he get disciplined at all or was the removal of the perminant site all that has happened?

prosaver

steve1980 wrote: »

Do you work for a security companies HR department?

As I DO work for a security company I can assure that this is part of the contract. Unless you tick this box then no security company will take you on.

steve1980 I cant be arsed anymore............... the law is the law and if you dont like it............. tough
she and he has got what they wanted ..if he was in the wrong they wouldnt of given his job back simple as that :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T:T:T

stephbond89

steve1980 wrote: »

Do you work for a security companies HR department?

As I DO work for a security company I can assure that this is part of the contract. Unless you tick this box then no security company will take you on.

B*llocks.

Sorry, but you CAN NOT be refused a job for refusing to give up your right to work more than 48 hours. In fact my husband CAN get his right to the 48 hiuor week back, he just has to give 3 months notice- time for them to sort out a new shift pattern for him. You cannot be forced to opt out of the 48 hour week!

stephbond89

And he got NO disciplinary action only been removed from the site!! So thats BRILLIANT. Means if he has any small slip ups which he had betetr not if he wants to keep his man veg.....then he wont get fired due to having a warnign already!

He has now been given a permanent site, better hours (only days!!!!!! yey!!) and 30p more an hour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His boss was taking the mick in the office today whenj we went in to take something to him, saying you fall asleep on the job and come out of it with a better job with better hours for you and a payrise!! lol, we're not complaining thats for sure!!!!