Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

pjcee

Sorry Emmzi, I know you are right, the rep knows his stuff, I will not post until after the appeal, and then only if we are sucessful.

Fridge3

pjcee wrote: »

Fridge3

Can you please just accept that what I am saying is correct - I have spent all week going over and over all this, I know what I am saying is right.

There are perfectly good reasons why the reserved rights issue is as it it, but I cannot comment more without making the Depts involved fairly obvious to anyone in one of 3 very large govt departments It's probably clear to some already).

And yes, I understand that each case is judged on it's merits but whichever way this is looked at the sanction of dismissal is used so vary rarely in the depts concerned, and more senior managers, with as much experience and responsibility have not been dismissed for doing things which constitute a breach of trust (and I think being caught during working hours having sex on your desk falls into that category, hard to think of any mitigation for that, along with a high profile case in the media involving a death and drugs, ditto).

It doesn't matter whether I accept what you are saying is correct or not, ultimately that's down to the appeals panel.

Many large public organisations use external providers for certain types of investigations, often because they are mindful that they may have to evidence due process and impartiality at later stages such as appeals and tribunals. As one such provider I have seen many panels cross examine employees and their representatives and I'm posting from the employers perspective which I would have thought would be helful, even if there are points that are not favourable or what you want to hear.

On the reserved rights, assuming your OH changed location when he moved from dept A to B, are you able to explain why he was not able to retain his existing base under reserved rights? If not why is this business distinction different to other business T&C's?

I have posted before on the (then) imminent closure of certain large govt department with large offices around the counrty. During the closure a few transfer posts to another equally large govt department became available. Again external help was sought to ensure the decisions on who got the posts were defendable later on. After much procrastination from PCS et al, reserved rights in many areas were not preserved and certainly the new employing dept had it's own (much stricter and enforced) guidelines on time management, sickness, leave, targets etc.

I said earlier the whole premise of using others' wrongs as a defence/mitigation does not work. It's used time and again and results in little or no defence because it's disregarded in the findings. And when the whole defence rests on others' wrongs there's often little or nothing else to present when it is disregarded.

Think about the logic of your point - having sex in work time didn't result in dismissal. Set that as a precedent and you're effectively saying anything short of, or up to that can't and won't be grounds for dismissal. The reality is that bad decisions such as that are reviewed and learnt from so as to not make the same mistakes again.

That said you seem clear other arrangements are in place with different govt depts so good luck with those.

meer53

I find it hard to believe that someone suffering severe mental stress would use the internet to help them, especially viewing !!!!!!, maybe to look for a counsellor or playing mind blowingly boring games ! Personally (i don't mean to offend the OP) but i think it's an excuse put forward to cover whats happened. Not just in this case but probably in others too. If the OP's other half works for a government department in a senior position, i would find it hard to understand that their employer would make such a huge mistake in their dismissal procedure. I know mistakes are sometimes made but i still think, looking at the information the OP has given that there is more to this than the OP knows. I hope not for her sake, it must be extremely stressful for her at this time and she has my sympathy. I hope it all turns out ok for them both. It will be interesting to hear the outcome.

gingerandrubarb

Hammyman wrote: »

You could start looking for a job if you're not already employed and give him support instead of sticking the knife in like everyone else. He obviously isn't up to working for a while.

Hammyman pot kettle black comes to mind. You could have read and run but you also had to comment and 'stick the knife in' The Op has obviously come here hoping to speak with other helpful people (as this site is known for) and to come across a comment like yours is ridic!

Anyhow i don't think there's anything that can be done, maybe speak with Citizens Advice or a trade union. I too would be angry and i know your upset and shocked but (hugs) as i would have felt hurt if it was my husband looking at naked ladies 'while' at work. It would make me wonder if anything was going on at home on the computer.
Fingers crossed it does all go in your favour and i suppose you can but only try hunny. :heartpuls

pjcee

Oh why did I check this thread again - I can't let some of these comments go by.

Meer53 - just do a search for 'using the internet to relieve stress' to see that this is the case. And I have now seen all the documents, so no room for conspiracy theories. Thanks for your kind thoughts though.

linhug - we have the occupational welfare advisors report that he is/was suffering with severe anxiety and depression. The dept could have taken the otion to give a warning, or demote, and provide support, but they did not.

jimmo - yes I know exactly what you are talking about, ditto. There was not really a case to answer regarding the time aspect, as it amounted to 10 mins a day, and OH did not take a formal lunchbreak, and private use in official time is allowed - we have it documented this is not the issue. This was not in a open office. And yes, we are focussing on the legal issues and procedural failures.

gingerandrhubarb - thanks for the hug, the issue for me is not the fact that he was looking at these pics per se, but that he was doing it in work when he knew he shouldn't, and has put our whole future at risk. It also hurts me very much that he had felt so unwell and lost for so long (since last summer) and was not able to talk to me about it, and I did not really recognise it, but this is because he internalises everything . He is going to get councelling to find out why he finds it impossible to show his feelings, as this has been an issue in our marriage before and he has had enough of feeling this way, and he is devastated at what he has done to me. I know a lot of men (and couples) who enjoy using !!!!!!, not for me, but that's their choice, it is not illegal. If it is being used in a healthy way I don't see there is no problem with it. I have spoken at length with OH, he has been very frank, and he has no idea why he felt the need to look at these picures at work (he said he also spent a lot of time reading the celeb pages on the Daily Mail webside - he hates the Mail, has no interest in celebs, but it gave his brain a bit of time to defog?), but when they were no longer relieving his stress (he does not smoke but said it was probably like going out for a cigarette break) he tried other things - he went for short walks to try to clear his head. If only he had done that to start with...

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

pjcee wrote: »

Oh why did I check this thread again - I can't let some of these comments go by.

Meer53 - just do a search for 'using the internet to relieve stress' to see that this is the case. And I have now seen all the documents, so no room for conspiracy theories. Thanks for your kind thoughts though.

linhug - we have the occupational welfare advisors report that he is/was suffering with severe anxiety and depression. The dept could have taken the otion to give a warning, or demote, and provide support, but they did not.

jimmo - yes I know exactly what you are talking about, ditto. There was not really a case to answer regarding the time aspect, as it amounted to 10 mins a day, and OH did not take a formal lunchbreak, and private use in official time is allowed - we have it documented this is not the issue. This was not in a open office. And yes, we are focussing on the legal issues and procedural failures.

gingerandrhubarb - thanks for the hug, the issue for me is not the fact that he was looking at these pics per se, but that he was doing it in work when he knew he shouldn't, and has put our whole future at risk. It also hurts me very much that he had felt so unwell and lost for so long (since last summer) and was not able to talk to me about it, and I did not really recognise it, but this is because he internalises everything . He is going to get councelling to find out why he finds it impossible to show his feelings, as this has been an issue in our marriage before and he has had enough of feeling this way, and he is devastated at what he has done to me. I know a lot of men (and couples) who enjoy using !!!!!!, not for me, but that's their choice, it is not illegal. If it is being used in a healthy way I don't see there is no problem with it. I have spoken at length with OH, he has been very frank, and he has no idea why he felt the need to look at these picures at work (he said he also spent a lot of time reading the celeb pages on the Daily Mail webside - he hates the Mail, has no interest in celebs, but it gave his brain a bit of time to defog?), but when they were no longer relieving his stress (he does not smoke but said it was probably like going out for a cigarette break) he tried other things - he went for short walks to try to clear his head. If only he had done that to start with...

If you were someone else entirley and you read this post, well the whole thing, what would you think. It's quite strwight forward; don't look at !!!!!! at work. There's no way anyone could ever convince me that they suffer from an illness that lead them to have to do that. I applaud you for standing by your man, but there seems to be a lot of denial here.

For one thing, he knew it was wrong but he set himself strict guidleines on it? Only in his lunch break, for ten minutes a day, no extreme stuff? I don't buy it.

Mischa8

Just skim-read this post and I have to say I LOL'd at some of the comments here.

So the OP's husband is so depressed at work that he looks at !!!!!! sites with seemingly little insight into what happens if:-

a) he's caught doing this (surfing internet);
b) he doesn't seem to consider the HR terms of his employment - eg gross misconduct.

I could TOTALLY understand if this had happened a few years back, when internet and !!!!!! were just coming into play and also policy about this for use at work etc.

Indeed, a few years ago, I remember an accounts assistant innocently looking on the internet at lunchtime, coming up with something minorly pornographic (don't ask me what) and when he told his manager and they looked into it, it was because he'd either clicked on a stupid *lads* link and also, he was foreign and I don't believe he quite knew the meanings of some of the words/links properly. So it was quite innocent.

In this day and age though, everyone and his dog knows about what constitutes gross misconduct and the use of !!!!!! at work and they just don't do it, simples.

I actually find it quite insulting that OP's husband is trying to blame this on depression as a 'get out of jail card' - having suffered from depression in the past myself. And like someone else mentioned here, sex life goes down the drain then!

Why doesn't he just admit he did wrong and that's it?! Move on. Don't cry to wife because HE knows SHE would be furious, given the !!!!!! aspect and all.

Sambucus_Nigra

I've avoided posting on this thread because I am gobsmacked that there is any excuse for looking at !!!!!! on the t'internet at work. It's the basics of internet useage policy and common bl00dy sense.

dark_lady

gingerandrubarb wrote: »

Hammyman pot kettle black comes to mind. You could have read and run but you also had to comment and 'stick the knife in' The Op has obviously come here hoping to speak with other helpful people (as this site is known for) and to come across a comment like yours is ridic!

Anyhow i don't think there's anything that can be done, maybe speak with Citizens Advice or a trade union. I too would be angry and i know your upset and shocked but (hugs) as i would have felt hurt if it was my husband looking at naked ladies 'while' at work. It would make me wonder if anything was going on at home on the computer.
Fingers crossed it does all go in your favour and i suppose you can but only try hunny. :heartpuls

Hammymans comment makes me wonder how he treats his wife.