Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

Torry_Quine

pjcee wrote: »

The Occ Health consultant was quite clear in her report that my OH's behaviour was consistent with someone suffering severe depression, this is not something I am just making up. she has advised he needs medical treatment immediately as his depression is so bad - including bereavment councelling, to deal with the unresolved issues around his mother's death. I think his employers sent him to Harley St to prove he was fit, whereas the report actually says otherwise. I had no idea how terrible he felt, and he says the only way he managed to actually do his work, or live with me, was to 'compmentalise' his life - on the surface he looked fine but inside he felt totally dead. If nothing else this all happening means he can get some releif from how he has been feeling for so long.

whilst I totally agree that use of !!!!!! in the workplace is totally unacceptable, the point I am trying (and obviously failing to make) is that the penalty handed out in this case is not consistent with many similay cases the Union rep (who specialises in this type of case, it happens quite a lot it seems) has dealt with before, whe much worse behaviour has recieved much lesser penalties.

When did this actually happen as surely all these reports took time. Was he suspended during this time and if so what was he doing?

I obviously can't speak to other cases but I think that dismissal is justified for abusing the internet privilege by looking at !!!!!!. It is very disturbing to think that this is not a rare thing but that others have done this.

It sounds like a complete break and some medical intervention is what he needs. If his depression was so severe though he would not have been able to function in any meaningful way

pjcee

Actually, use of !!!!!! can ha little to do with sex, there's plenty on the internet about why !!!!!! is addictive, and it's not all to do with gettting sexual gratification.

But that really is not my point.

dseventy

I am not sure "depression" or "stress" means its ok to look at naked women at work?

There are lots of symptoms of the above, I am not sure using the internet at work to look at soft !!!!!! is one of them.

D70

DVardysShadow

Reading between the lines, Occupational Health seem to be unhappy about being dragged into this. Mum dying 3 years ago looks to be the best they can put up in his support from an OH perspective - but they really don't want to be associated with a dismissal. I would say that in a work place context this is NOT gross misconduct, rather it is more written warning kind of territory. But your problem is that if the Employment Tribunal don't take this view and the employer thinks that they can prevail on this at ET, then they are likely to stand their ground.

I would say make sure the union are well,briefed and put in an appeal - not that he is whiter than white - but that the sanction is grossly disproportionate and that a written warning is more appropriate to the misdemeanour.

pjcee

Well I am sure everyone will have a point of view, and if you think that for any crime there are never mitigating circumstances, why do we bother with judicial system where mitigation is accepted.

But again, that is not my point - I am not saying what he did was not totally wrong, I am saying that others who have done similar or worse did not receive the same penalty.

TBH I don't have the energy to keep saying the same thing, thanks for all the help.

dmg24

pjcee wrote: »

Actually, use of !!!!!! can ha little to do with sex, there's plenty on the internet about why !!!!!! is addictive, and it's not all to do with gettting sexual gratification.

But that really is not my point.

You are right, the reason behind it is irrelevant, and needs to be taken away from any appeal. Focus on the precedent, don't try to give reasons for what he did.

(On a side note, the other reasons for looking at !!!!!! are far less healthy than a simple thrill - I would hope that he was looking for some kind of gratification.)

kingfisherblue

By all means appeal, but at the place where I am involved in employment issues, accessing websites for !!!!!! would mean an investigation. If found to be correct, it is gross misconduct and therefore a sackable offence.

DVardysShadow

Torry_Quine wrote: »

... I obviously can't speak to other cases but I think that dismissal is justified for abusing the internet privilege by looking at !!!!!!.

I would disagree with this very strongly. This is written warning territory. Only IMO would a repeat offence justify dismissal.

nearlyrich

All public sector jobs are at risk, if they can use gross misconduct to get rid of someone with long service and therefore an expensive redunadancy package they will...No-one shpuld be accessing !!!!!! at work whatever their mental state.

DVardysShadow

nearlyrich wrote: »

All public sector jobs are at risk, if they can use gross misconduct to get rid of someone with long service and therefore an expensive redunadancy package they will...No-one shpuld be accessing !!!!!! at work whatever their mental state.

The point is well made. But let us draw the distinction. No one should do it because it is not nice and for self preservation because it risks dismissal from employers who are only to glad to dismiss. The above is not justification for dismissal. Written warnings are more appropriate to first offences here.