Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

meer53

OP, in your original post you say that your husband says he accessed !!!!!! on only 2 occasions for 10 minutes or so. I don't want to upset you any more than you already are but, as you havent seen the reports (which your husband can't show you) how can you be sure that he's telling you the truth ? His punishment does seem a bit OTT for just viewing on 2 occasions, is it possible that there's something he isnt telling you ?

My ex convinced me that he was severely depressed when i found out that he was having an affair and told me that he'd only been seeing this girl for 6 weeks. When it all came out he'd been seeing her for over 6 months. I supported him, believing that he wasn't acting normally as his brother had recently committed suicide but actually, he was just lying to me.

I'm not saying that this is what your husband is doing, i believe what you're saying, but if it were me, until i saw the reports i'd be a bit wary as to his explanation of what happened.

Please don't take offence at my post, i suppose i'm a bit too cynical nowadays but there must be a reason why he has been dismissed and others haven't ?

Good luck x

pjcee

hi meer53

no offence taken, i know exactly what you mean, and yes i would under normal circs think very carefully if he is telling the truth, but he has said that he is, and I have asked to go with him to his next meeting with the union, he has said yes, and i can see every document. if he is telling lies it will all come out then, and he knows me well enough to know that this would not be a good thing. i am like a dog with a bone on all subjects (once I know) so he will not be able to hoodwink me in any way .it is only because i have had my own bad stuff to deal with that i missed the signs that things were not right.

Emmzi

pjcee, you say to compare with other cases.

I can tell you no two cases are identical. There are always variations in circumstance.

That is partly why everyone is saying "on its own merits."

Not that it makes it easier, just to help you understand. You would need to know all the variables in the other cases and you are unlikely to be able to access that information.

Oldernotwiser

I wonder if you've thought to check your computer to see what sites he's been accessing at home?

pjcee

i am aware that no two case are the same BUT the union rep deals with all of this type of case , and has done a very large number of them. he was totally shocked at the reult as based on his experience much worse cases had got lesser penalties (all innapropriate use of internet cases), and the only two where someone was sacked were very serious grounds indeed - way way worse than what OH did. i know he cant use those specific cases, but says he can constuct an argument for the appeal based on all the 'precidents' (sorry no idea exactly what or how) that have gone before - to try to persuade the appeal panel that the earlier decision was not proportionate and a lesser penalty can and should be applied

CFC

DVardysShadow wrote: »

There is no law against accessing !!!!!! at work. I would agree you should not use the internet for anything other than the employer's business - unless this is permitted.

SarEl has made the point that if the employer dismissed for accessing !!!!!!, the ET would be unlikely to overturn this. That is not the same as saying that the legal position is that you should not access !!!!!! at work. Indeed if the employer were the publisher of certain national newspapers, it would be hypocrisy to dismiss for this reason!

I think you are close to bigging up the wrongness of viewing !!!!!! at work - on which I would agree with you - based on false premises, which I won't support.

There's no LAW against poo-ing on your desk either, but most employers would treat it as GM.

If employers do not have policies against !!!!!!,whether mild or not, and a person (usually female) is offended by it or feels intimidated in the workplace, the employer will be in a bad place, and that costs £££s.
Any dinosaur employer who didn't that someone was looking at nudie pics will have a harsh awakening one of these days, unless they are in the line of work of providing these type of pics.

pjcee

Oldernotwiser

to quote torry quine, that is not really the issue. As far as i am aware my OH is free to view what he wants at home as long as it is not actually illegal?

I am amazed at how many posters think that they can belittle what is a massive shock for me , not sure what they get out of it?

Emmzi

pjcee wrote: »

i am aware that no two case are the same BUT the union rep deals with all of this type of case , and has done a very large number of them.

I think we're all saying "brace yourself for the worst." If it doesn't happen and there is a successful appeal, great.

But, that may not happen. And without the detailed files, none of us can really advise.

Very best of luck, will be thinking of you.

xx

pjcee

Thanks, i appreciate the thoughts

CountryGuy

pjcee wrote: »

I have a job, thanks. I am not sticking the knife in, I am angry that his employer has chosen to dismiss when there is plenty of precident for a lesser penalty - i know he was it was a stupid thing to do, but the consultants report said that this sort of behaviouris a classic sign of someone who is not coping.

I'm sorry to hear your news.

What planet is the consultant from?

This sort of behaviour is unacceptable, being depressed is no excuse, but even if it is true and his behaviour is 'normal', it cannot be accepted in the work place. I'm trying to imagine what the outcome would have been had I showed that 'classic behaviour' before I resigned from my position in an educational setting.

Suffering from depression doesn't entitle us or allow us to behave in an unacceptable manner,there are still consequences.

I really am sorry about your situation but I'm wondering if it might be better for you both if you were to concentrate on getting your oh well again and try to put this terrible experience behind you somehow.

Good luck