Sacked for excessive internet use !!

SarEl

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

If you're the only woman, and none of the men have ever done any online shopping in work time, there MAY be some sexual discrimination here, but IMO you'd have a hard time proving it, especially as I don't believe the company HAVE to let you see anyone else's browsing history.

Bit of a stretch that, isn't it Sue? Women are more likely to need to go online shopping so it may be discrimination?

OP wasn't sacked for what she did online, but for the fact she was doing it in work time.

Sambucus_Nigra

Sachin wrote: »

I then took legal advise and was told I had a good case and that they seem to have muddled things up as haven't done things procedurally right however no guarantee you ll win as tribunal will look at band of reasonable responses .

And if the response would have been that they would dismiss anyone who falsified their timesheets by a significant amount; there will be little they will do. Not ticking one box in the procedure won't be the nail in their coffin I am afraid.

Emmzi

I've done dismissals for too much internet use and email abuse.

And I still can't see where the OP has told us HOW MUCH TIME as it's key to see if it is "reasonable"

lunch break + 2 mins here and there = fine

over 2 hours a day = not

Still. He has spoken to a lawyer so I am sure he will be fine now.

Uncertain

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

And if the response would have been that they would dismiss anyone who falsified their timesheets by a significant amount; there will be little they will do. Not ticking one box in the procedure won't be the nail in their coffin I am afraid.

Yes and no!!!

Providing there is at least one valid technicality to have a go at it gives the OP the opportunity to bring a case without any danger of having costs awarded.

I agree with SarEl's comment that any win may well be subject to a Polkey reduction (perhaps even to zero). However what people often forget is that reaching that point will cost the employer a very significant amount in legal fees and time.

Remember too that is the best outcome the employer can hope for, they may still end up having to pay some compensation as well.

It is for this reason there is a fair chance the employer will decide to settle as it is cheaper option even if they think they might ultimately "win".

OK, they may not. Some are pig headed enough to spend many times the cost of settling in fighting on a point of principle. Who knows?

However, one thing is certain. If the OP doesn't try they will end up with nothing. I'm not suggesting by any means there is a fortune in this , far from it. It may be the best and realistically achievable outcome is a legally binding agreed reference. This is not to be sneezed at as it could be worth far more long term that a few quid in compensation.

Never underestimate just how much grief a really determined ex-employee can cause a small company (completely legally) if they get the bit between their teeth. Based on what we are told here I would have thought the door was open just enough to be worth having a go.

Sachin

One of the major issues here is equity . In the dismissal meeting he admitted that he has obtained written statements from others some of whom have said use the Internet all day . However he says music and sports sites are different to fashion and shopping sites .

He also says that he allow people to use Internet during work time but restricted access .

So whole thing is unclear you can visit some sites but not others . How can I know this.

Uncertain

Sachin wrote: »

One of the major issues here is equity . In the dismissal meeting he admitted that he has obtained written statements from others some of whom have said use the Internet all day . However he says music and sports sites are different to fashion and shopping sites .

He also says that he allow people to use Internet during work time but restricted access .

Make sure that the notes of the meeting reflect this as it could be very important.

Savvy_Sue

SarEl wrote: »

Bit of a stretch that, isn't it Sue? Women are more likely to need to go online shopping so it may be discrimination?

OP wasn't sacked for what she did online, but for the fact she was doing it in work time.

I agree that it's a complete stretch, but I was trying to show what would be needed IF the OP wanted to go for discrimination, as in being able to prove that men were given different latitude to women. And the OP suggests that the manager says it's OK for sports and music to be accessed online (presumably during work hours).

Actually I can see a significant difference here in the types of sites which the manager says are OK: I can listen to Radio 4 all day while working from home without it affecting my output, I could probably listen to a cricket commentary equally well. But shopping - well, that's not really a background activity, is it?

FWIW, I think the OP is on a hiding to nothing with the sexual discrimination. From what I've read, there MAY be a defence if the employer didn't have a 'fair internet use' policy in place for all staff. BUT since the employer wouldn't normally expect to have a policy in place for 'reasonable amount of time spent in the ladies filing your nails' / 'reasonable amount of time discussing the footie around the coffee machine', then personally I'd be trying to stay on good terms, going graciously, and seeing if I could get a half-decent reference agreed ....

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

However what people often forget is that reaching that point will cost the employer a very significant amount in legal fees and time.

Whilst I do not disagree broadly - equally remember that an employer does not have to incur legal fees, because they also do not need a lawyer. And the time which is an inconvenience can be offset by the phone calls made to prospective employers ensuring that you stand no chance of working again! Whatever the rights and wrongs of the employer - the OP did do what they are accused of, and isn't in a position to deny it. And that leaves the OP waiting for several months on a dodgy claim and the employer having quite an arsenal of methods to lawfully screw them. Picking a fight with an employer is one thing - picking a fight when you are not on solid ground is another.

And I also note that the OP is very much ignoring every single question about how long they actually spent on the internet. Which is probably an answer in itself.

scheming_gypsy

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Actually I can see a significant difference here in the types of sites which the manager says are OK: I can listen to Radio 4 all day while working from home without it affecting my output, I could probably listen to a cricket commentary equally well. But shopping - well, that's not really a background activity, is it?

to be honest it sounds as though they keep moving the goal posts:
As soon as everybody else says they use x, y and z then that's fine; just not what the OP is doing.
They have a restrictive use policy but no actual policy and no web filter that blocks 'shopping'.
The OP was falsifying timesheets for being on the net but if she was on sports sites like her colleagues; would it be acceptable to falsify timesheets or does that only count for shopping? or have her colleagues falsified timesheets but nothing has been mentioned about them?
Also the fact that they only had the browsing history rather than anything from a web filter which shows actual internet useage. Which makes it sound as though there is no filter just open internet access and therefore potentially impossible to produce any information of how much time she's spent online.

Although the OP doesn't help by jumping about all over the place, not answering questions and then throwing more information in days later.

DaisyFlower

OMG is the OP for real. So the majority of the day is spent on the net (given they have been asked how long the net usuage was many times with no answer its fair to say it was very excessive) and now wants to take his employer to tribunal!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you completed a time sheet for the hours you were "working" yet were actually surfing then they are right to dismiss you. You cant surf and work at the same time.