Sacked for excessive internet use !!

scheming_gypsy

SarEl wrote: »

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.

although i've just commented on that myself; if they do say how long they were on and their ex employer is a member of here and reading the thread... then they'd incriminate themselves by admitting to how much time they spent on line.
If there are no logs showing that she's abused the priviledge then the employers could have just been hoping that she'd accept she'd done it...

scheming_gypsy

DaisyFlower wrote: »

You cant surf and work at the same time.

i'd better stop these two installs i've got going then while i'm on here

t0rt0ise

I suspect there's slightly more to this. I used to work in an office where we all used the internet on quiet days after we'd done our work but one guy would use the internet instead of doing his work. Sometimes he'd even stay late racking up TOIL while he caught up while the rest of us had no extra time off. He seemed to have no idea that he was behaving differently and I wonder if the OP is the same... completely oblivious. Maybe they needed this wake up call or maybe they will still blame everyone else.

Strider590

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

Where I used to work, my department got accused of "browsing the internet all day". I find these allegations usually come from technoarrogant tw4ts, who don't know what you do, who then actively seed them into other peoples heads by making wise !!! jokes and comments at every opportunity.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

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.

Obviously the employer could go it alone, presumably reducing their chances of winning, but few do.

A more common scenario, which I have seen all too often, is that they end up using an indifferent solicitor and rapidly run through a few thousands pounds long before it gets to a tribunal.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination on the part of the ex-employee to play on this and "help" them to run up a considerable bill.

It is also not difficult to stir up considerable anxiety amongst the remaining staff. Finding the least psychologically secure, getting them to say what you want to hear in private then threatening them with a witness order can be quite effective!

So, "having quite an arsenal of methods to lawfully screw them" as you so delicately put it can work both ways!

Finally, you say "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!" It is a possibility of course but this would be just as true if the OP had a rock solid case. Equally it could happen if the OP does nothing!

Do you not feel there is just enough "grey" here for there to be a realistic chance of a modest settlement if it is handled carefully?

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Obviously the employer could go it alone, presumably reducing their chances of winning, but few do.

A more common scenario, which I have seen all too often, is that they end up using an indifferent solicitor and rapidly run through a few thousands pounds long before it gets to a tribunal.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination on the part of the ex-employee to play on this and "help" them to run up a considerable bill.

It is also not difficult to stir up considerable anxiety amongst the remaining staff. Finding the least psychologically secure, getting them to say what you want to hear in private then threatening them with a witness order can be quite effective!

So, "having quite an arsenal of methods to lawfully screw them" as you so delicately put it can work both ways!

Finally, you say "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!" It is a possibility of course but this would be just as true if the OP had a rock solid case. Equally it could happen if the OP does nothing!

Do you not feel there is just enough "grey" here for there to be a realistic chance of a modest settlement if it is handled carefully?

I didn't say there wasn't, and it depends on what you consdier modest. I was pointing out that it does not go one way, and I assume the OP wants to work again some time. Employers generally can't be arsed with chasing after sacked employees, but that attitude can change if they happen to !!!! off the employer. Risks are not just one way.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

I didn't say there wasn't, and it depends on what you consdier modest.

As I said earlier in the thread, if I was the OP I would use any (legal) lever or device to encourage the employer settle with at least a legally binding reference. Any cash on top would be a bonus.

Slinky

I remember where I used to work we had somebody come in for an interview for a sales job. She admitted to the interviewer that she was taking her previous employer to a tribunal. After that point it wouldn't have mattered if she could prove she could sell sand to the arabs or ice to the inuits, there was no way our interviewer was going to expose our employer to that sort of risk.

There's always somebody else who could be employed.

Uncertain

Slinky wrote: »

I remember where I used to work we had somebody come in for an interview for a sales job. She admitted to the interviewer that she was taking her previous employer to a tribunal. After that point it wouldn't have mattered if she could prove she could sell sand to the arabs or ice to the inuits, there was no way our interviewer was going to expose our employer to that sort of risk.

There's always somebody else who could be employed.

That is why I put such a high priority on getting a watertight agreed reference in these situations.

This is something a tribunal can't order even if you win hands down.

However it can be made part of a legally binding settlement along with a requirement that the parties do not speak ill of each other.

It is amazing how some employer's principles disappear once the costs start mounting!