Please help, anyone - OH dismissed

pjcee

I assume the civil Service Occupational health advisor knows what she is talking about, I know from previous experience they are very careful about what they write.

Anyway that is not the point, as I have said many times before.

And yes, thanks we will have to move on, but I thought this forum was here to offer help which is why I posted initially.

CountryGuy

There may be some hope for your oh:

Quote: 'If companies do not take the basic steps to get this right, they risk complaints from staff about their handling of personal data. They could also run into difficulty when dismissing an employee for internet misuse - tribunals can penalise employers for unlawfully obtaining relevant evidence, for example, by ordering the employer to pay the employee's legal costs.'

Taken from:
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2005/06/21/30427/no-place-for-pornography-at-work.html

CountryGuy

pjcee wrote: »

I assume the civil Service Occupational health advisor knows what she is talking about, I know from previous experience they are very careful about what they write.

Anyway that is not the point, as I have said many times before.

And yes, thanks we will have to move on, but I thought this forum was here to offer help which is why I posted initially.

Sadly, for anyone to really be able to help they would need the full story/report. People can only offer advice on what they know. I sincerely do hope it all gets dealt with very soon for your sake and state of mind.

I admire you for standing by and supporting him through all of this. I also wonder if it might help you if you could seek some kind of counselling to help you get through this.

pjcee

OH will, I hope I can manage to come through without, we cant afford two lots.

This is for SarEL, and others who understand Eployment law and process etc.

OH spoke to union rep this am. The scenario is this :

There are two Gov Depts - A and B

OH used to be part of A, now in B, but with 'reserved rights' in A. As such he should be treated as still employed in A.

The rules regarding internet misuse are different in each dept, but it now transpires that under either set of rules, viewing the images that my OH did does not constitute Gross Misconduct (this is definite for Dept B and reps view re dept A, dept A seeing this differently)

At hearing, chairwoman presented the folder of precidents they were were going to use to hear the case and said they were Dept B precidents. The Union rep asked for a copy, which he will be sent.

During hearing the Chair commented that OH has been visiting 'illegal' websites (which are, in Dept B, grounds for GM) . Rep got her to clarify and she said o I didn't mean illegal. This leads the rep to believe they were using Dept B precidents and rules to hear a case that should have been under Dept A rules.

Rep is saying that even under Dept A rules, he can produce precidents which show that GM charges are only applied to hard-core pornography, and even when this is proved dismissal is only used when the material viewed was illegal.

And there is the issue of not bringing the first report of misuse to his attention.

finally, the first report of innaproprate used (level 1 misconduct) was complete and ready to submit OH LM on 17th Dec. First OH knew of this was in March. There is a second report from late dec to feb during which the other images were viewed, added as a supplimentary report to the first. No explanation why the first report was not submitted to OH when it was ready in Dec.

The rep is going to the union legal team for further advice, but if we are not able to win the appeal, are there now grounds for going to ET, OH hopes that if he can get treatment for depression he may be better placed to got to ET

Oldernotwiser

pjcee wrote: »

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?

I suggested this as it would give you an idea of the level of your husband's pornography use and prepare you for the fact that it may not just be nudes that he's been looking at.

I'm not the only one who feels that you may not have been given the full facts regarding what has occurred at work.

DVardysShadow

CFC wrote: »

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

Essentially, I used a similar aanlogy at post 58 http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=44594036&postcount=58

CFC wrote: »

... 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.

I am not challenging the idea that viewing !!!!!! is wrong in most [but not necessarily all] workplaces. What I am challenging is the kneejerk idea that it is automatically GM and automatically merits dismissal. Of course it has to be dealt with in the work place - and anyone caught should be on a very short piece of string thereafter.

And I'll say it again, there appears to be plenty of dual standards around this, related to the pressure on the employer either to reduce costs or to meet demand.

Emmzi

I'm not totally sure reserved rights apply here as it is departmental standards as opposed to contcat stuff like pension, hours, pay, which is where reserved rights usually come into it.

However. Can the employer demonstrate he was briefed in the tighter IT policy at any time? When he logs on is there a link to the policy, for example? If they can't then he *may* have a case. If they can it's probably bad news.

Strider590

The internet is 90% !!!!!! and he was dismissed for catching a glimpse of two images?

It's like getting shot for not winning the lottery........

I could type in anything on Google and find pornographic imagery. Maggy Thatcher, turn off the safe search, which often filters out wanted websites anyway (false positives) and im sure if you scroll down a bit, you'll find something less than tasteful.

ohreally

pjcee, has the diagnosis of depression resulted in an addiction? (discuss the consequences of addiction and CS policies with pcs).

pjcee

Oldernotwiser - the facts as stated in the report are that those were the types of pictures he was viewing, I will see the report, little point him lying - he knows the score if he is! What he does outside work is not really the issue here, suffice to say I am fully aware.

Emmzi - yes they do,cannot say more but the rights dictate which set of rules are applied. and he was fully aware of policy, not denying he did it, the case is now that viewing that type of image, under both sets of rules does not constiute GM, so he should not have been dismissed.

ohreally - I believe he has some form of addiction, having spoken at length, but nothing diagnosed. That will come with treatment for depression I hope - also consultant said he had tics, he's quite ocd.