Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

eamon

To the OP. Try and ignore the "hang em high" posters on here. You have had good advice from SarEl, Kiki and others. Based on the limited information that you have been able to provide your OH must appeal.

As a side note I'm astonished that your OH was able to access "dodgy" images on a works machine, but as his employer is/was the CS I'm not that surprised. A good friend works in IT for one of the devolved assemblies and he routinely had to "disinfect" machines that were used by elected members and in their constituency offices. I suspect that they don't use any "Net Nanny" type software, but as he has signed the Official Secrets Act he couldn't say. From my point of veiw I would expect my employer not to have the IT systems littered with anti-personnel mines. As an example my employer uses "True View" to block content, whilst on occasions it can be a nusiance on others its amusing. For instance its blocks "Bruce Springsteen" not because if anything in the Bruces info but because Springsteen contain "Teen" and that could be construed as searching for illegal, dodgy web content.

pjcee

Thanks Eamon

Yes I do appreciate the good advice, and no obviously the IT system did allow access to those sites (through bad filtering I suspect). So only poor (very) judgement on his part, no illegal dismantling of filters as others have done and just been given warning letters.

He will appeal, I was really trying to find anyone on here who would know whether if unsuccessful, he had any right to go to tribunal based on the seemingly unfair and harsh treatment, as his rep is saying ET will only look at the fairness of the process, which is slightly different to what I have read on net, which is they will also look at whether the penalty was fair.

Emmzi

If he is depressed now, an ET is really going to put him through the wringer. I'd have a search on here for threads about ETs before you decide on that route.

How are they dismissing? You may be fortunate and get a compromise agreement which would make it easier to seek work elsewhere if worded carefully.

pjcee

he says already done, even before appeal, so no idea if comrpomise is possible.

He has already said cant face ET in current state, but he also cant believe how harsh this is (but i suppose he would say that) so i don't know what will happen, i just want to crawl into a hole and never come out, so god knows how he feels.

sandraann

My heart goes out to you and your other half.It must be so difficult for you to provide support and deal with your own feelings. Did he express his anxieties, stress etc during his appraisals at work as it would really help if it's been recorded. I think it's a very harsh decision and you need to focus your energies on an appeal.Best of luck and it makes perfect sense that people behave in an uncharacteristic way when they're stressed.

hcb42

some of these posts on here are appalling and in no way help the OP or her OH. speculating on the matter is ridiculous and unhelpful.

SarEl

I have to agree with Googlewhacker (some time ago) - this is not a tribunal case. If it goes to tribunal the OP's OH will loose - of that I am quite certain. Browsing any form of !!!!!!, on the works system, is a dismissable offence. End of story. They do not have have to dismiss - but no tribunal would gainsay them doing so. Dismissal is within the range of reasonable responses for the employer.

However I am very worried by one thing - which the OP may have misunderstood what was said etc. But I have to be clear. The union rep cannot introduce the details of others cases or, as said here, precedents. That would be breach of confidence and very serious professional misconduct on their part. People's disciplunbaries are confidential and any union rep who used other cases evidence in an unrelated case would and should be disciplined by both the union and the employer. And these cases have no relevance. Any case is an individual set of circumstances. The case should be judged on those and those alone. Someone else may have done exactly the same thing as your husband - but maybe they were not a manager with an example to set to others, or maybe they had a prevoously reported and existing condition that led to their actions, or maybe they didn't mean to click on the site and it just came up (which I have seen cases of). You cannot rely on other cases to win yours. And if the union rep uses cases which are confidential cases to prove his point - well he does actually deserve sacking. How would people feel if it were their confidential business being dragged up again?

pjcee

thanks Sandraann

Yes it is very hard, as i just want to punch him for being so stupid, and he is totally gutted at how badly it has affected me.

He did mention that to his boss that the 'little bit of extra work' that he got was far more than that and he was already fully loaded, but as i said at the start the culture was not one of being supportive, the attitude was 'tough' just get on with it, it 's what we pay you for, his boss was not very approachable and other members of his team went off with WRS due to his managment style. he had to make very important decisions that had big effects if he got them wrong, and his boss knew nothing about the work area so was very dismissive all round. OH being a !!!! thought he could work through how he he was feeling and ended up using the internet (generally, not !!!!!! sites, the first report of his activity had nothing like that in it, the second one done a couple of weeks later had just these two visits for a couple of mins on two conseutive days) to relieve the pressure he did not feel he could discuss with manager or colleagues. On top of that my mum died christmas which then just added to the cycle of everything. I have not got anyone to tell all this to so sorry for rambling but i am feeling a little crazy at mo as i cant face eating or drinking and my head is just fulll of this stuff

pjcee

SarEL

i am only saying what OH has said Union rep has said - and sorry i cant exp fruther here as it would give too much infor, but it hinges on which set of preciednces are being used, in one case this would not have been GM, on other it is but under virtually every case the rep has dealt with where there was found to be GM, the sanction was not dismissal. The rep has been told that panel will provide precidence, he has said he will counter with others. there seems to have been some confusion part way through the panel, as they had to delay three time whist they rand round to find out which precidence to use. according to OH as soon as rep asked for precidence the HR rep went white and the chairwoman was just jibbering - dont know the relevance of this!

Torry_Quine

I am sorry if i appear unduly harsh but accessing !!!!!! at work is gross misconduct and therefore the employer is quite justified to dismiss. Presumably before an employment tribunal he would have an appeal from his employer first. This is a very arduous process and to be honest someone who is vey depressed may not be helped by this.

I did ask when this incident occur as presumably he has been suspended while reports were compiled. What was he doing during this time.

I really hope that he gets the help he needs and that a satisfactory outcome is reached.