How bad does this sound?

dmg24

I do think he needs to be careful about appearing difficult. If he has done on call duties for a long time and was unsure of the escalation policy he should have highlighted this at an earlier date. Stick to the situation in hand, and the fact that had he contacted someone earlier, it would not have changed the outcome of the situation. Try to make it a learning opportunity - if it happens in future he will contact someone as soon as the policy states.

He can request more time to prepare his case, but does he actually need more time?

It's a shame when people get into trouble simply for doing their job.

Hootie19

The meeting has been held and we're in for a Waiting Weekend. The meeting was adjourned after about 30 minutes, and he has been told that he will be called back to another meeting, probably on Monday.

The IT man honed in on the fact that the boss wasn't alerted sooner. DH tried to explain that he didn't realise it was a problem that could have caused major problems to the company - and that, of course, was what was picked up on immediately. Apparently he just *should* have known, even though there has never been any guidance etc given to the engineers as to what consitutes a business threatening incident.

One small glimmer of hope, possibly is that the IT man said that following this incident, they have realised the company is exposed because the VPN is dependent on one data centre being available. If that centre goes down, then it is worse because they can't do anything else. I don't know if that is good for DH or not, but at least I think it shows they realise there is a chink in the company's armour, so to speak.

Are we placing false hope on the fact that he wasn't dismissed there and then?

He still hasn't been told, btw, what he is being "charged" with - negligence, incompetence, gross misconduct, etc. I'd have thought that would have had to have been communicated to him by now.

Sambucus_Nigra

It should have been in that letter that he didn't get...along with the potential result [dismissal, final written warning etc].

Hootie19

He had his meeting today, and he's been given a final written warning. The company accepted that he was not acting with any malicious intent and agreed that this has highlighted some shortcomings that the company needs to address.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that "until they can regain trust in him", they have taken him off the on-call rota. Costing us £600 a month. That is seriously bad news. So not only have they given him a nasty black mark against his previously unblemished name, but they are also effectively fining him £600 a month.

The glimmer of hope is that the other guys on the on-call rota won't be happy at doing 1 in 3 for long. Hopefully they'll make sufficient grumbles about it for my husband to be reinstated sooner rather than later.

He is now vigorously job hunting, in the hopes that a prospective employer will look with some sympathy at his case. Within his company, a final written warning stays with you for a minimum of 18 months. I know I wouldn't be at all happy working with that manager with the atmosphere that's bound to be in the office, no matter how hard he tries to carry on as normal.

dmg24

Have they given any indication as to how long he will be off the rota? Have they offered any training or advice as to how he can regain their trust?

I think a final written warning is excessive, but I'm honestly not sure whether it would be worth appealing or not. Whilst he could get a lesser sanction, it could also make them more likely to try to push him out.

Hootie19

No - no indication as to the length of the suspension from on-call, and no offer of training or indication of how to rebuild the trust. Maybe that will all be in the letter they said they will send detailing the outcome of the disciplinary. Presumably he will need to have a meeting with the boss at some point to discuss this.

Actually, as I'm writing this, I'm wondering if he should in fact return to work tomorrow, as they have told him to do. Should he wait until he has received and read this letter? Is going back to work without having seen it, implicitly accepting whatever they put in it? Supposing they've put something he considers completely unacceptable to him?

I agree dmg24. I think the punishment is draconian and far too severe for the "crime" he's meant to have committed. But I think overall, he's just so relieved not to have been dismissed that he will just accept it and hope to find another job relatively soon.

He has just said that he was "charged" with gross incompetence, which I've never heard of before - and would like to know the definition of. Incompetence, I could possible accept, if you really want to stretch the point. But *gross* incompetence? I dunno - it's beginning to smell extremely fishy to me. But maybe it's just my loyalty to my husband making me feel like that!

The cynic in me is thinking they're wanting to get rid of someone to balance the books, and were just biding their time until someone made a mistake. Unfortunately my husband was "the one", and I wonder if they're making this as difficult as possible for him in the hopes that he will leave of his own accord, thereby saving any redundancy costs.

Emmzi

if they dismissed for misconduct, which they could have chosen to do, no redundancy would have been payable. so by keeping him on they are saving nowt. I think you are over thinking the motives. The site was down, they have to be seen to do something about it to appease the customers.

Hootie19

What I meant, Emmzi, is that they wanted to save "a person's" salary but didn't want to pay out any redunancy money. So they waited until "someone" made an error, and made a bigger issue out of their error than necessary. By giving "someone" a final written warning, they are hoping that the person would find their position within the company untenable and that person would leave of their own accord. Thereby saving a person's salary and not paying any redundancy to do so. It just happened that my husband was the first to make any kind of error.

And yes, the site was down. But it wasn't my husband's company's site that was down. It was their supplier's supplier's site. So I don't see how my husband's company making an example of someone can appease their customers - who probably weren't even aware of the problem, as it was all back up and running by 7am.

Sambucus_Nigra

If they wanted rid then they would have got rid. I do think you are overthinking it.

Emmzi

what sambucus said. they would have just got rid rather than hope someone got upset enough to go. Plus stat. redundancy is relatively cheap anyway.

i know it is easier to think they are "out to get" OH than to think OH cocked up. But if they wanted him gone he'd be out by now.