Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

Googlewhacker

pjcee wrote: »

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.

Just so we are clear,the union rep has dealt with for that company or for other companies because if it is the latter then its irrelivant.

At the end of the day if they want him gone I can't see this being successful I am afraid because if you took it to a tribunal I would expect other cases to be irrelivant (SarEl may tell me differant).

Uncertain

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

I totally agree with you that it is not a MORAL justification to dismiss. Sadly however it may be a LEGAL one.

sammyjammy

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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

In the original post the OP states her husband worked for CS, I assume this means Civil Service, in which case it is Gross Misconduct and dismissal is common for those guilty of this offence. It breaks the IT policy which is a big no no and people are made an example of.

pjcee

just to clarify, before I stop as i am totally shattered , the rep has dealt with any number of cases within the same org, with the same rules, that have been treated less harshy - even for second offences.

He has asked to see the precidents used to jugde this case, and has access to many, many others.

there is some confusion in the case around which precidents should be used - even by the panel that sat (I dont want to go into detail here), but whichever way round it should be (under one set of rules viewing that site would not have constiuted G misconduct, under the other it does, but in the second case there are so few precidents for dismissal being the first and only option, they were for much worse offences).

I agree that it would seem that this is an easy and cheap way to get the headcount down, OH was totally foolish, he is distraught, but looking forward to getting treatment and starting to feel something like alive again.

Emmzi

FWIW in my current and prior place of work non-porny nudes as a one off would be a written/ final written; GMC would need to be sustained over s period of time or worse images.

I suspect either he *has* done worse, or they are looking for any opportunity to get rid and save redundancy payouts.

You may never really know which.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

Seriously. That's great commitment to stand by your man and try to convince yourself and others that your husband getting his rocks off at work whilst looking at internet pron can be excused as a way of coping with depression. It's very interesting to hear that he has boundries of only looking at full frontal stuff and only form 10 mins at a time. If you scour the internet you might find some crackpot recommending this as treatment for depresion. Who knows, you might be able to sue for disability discrimination.

pjcee

Sammy

not everywhere, see my earlier post, in this case if he was dealt with under one dept rules (who he works for) it is not GM. But there are complexities around this I cant go into.

But that again, is not the point, GM as applied to him, DOES NOT for this behaviour mean automatic sacking as many previous cases have demonstrated.

I must stop posting but actually its the only thing keeping me from cracking completely myself.

Oldernotwiser

GothicStirling wrote: »

I'm being treated for depression at the moment, and believe me all sex drive goes out of the window.

If not because of the depression, then because of the anti depressants!

pjcee

Ronaldo Mconaldo

Thanks, what pearls of wisdom, just what I needed.


emmzi

He says not, it is all in the reports he has been given copies of, which he will give me as soon as he can (in work where he can no longer go).

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

Well don't be in denial. You know what's been going on.