Gross Misconduct dismissal

SLITHER99

Aye. It does sound to me like he partook in normal culture but someone wanted to either get shot of him or make an example of him. And, what he can prove seems to be less than what his old employer can prove.

Cool stuff, just thought I'd get other opinions.

Uncertain

SLITHER99 wrote: »

And, what he can prove seems to be less than what his old employer can prove.

Cool stuff, just thought I'd get other opinions.

As I indicated early on in this thread it may well be worth a challenge with the intention of settling for an agreed reference.

There are enough grey areas to build something on and the firm may well be inclined to take the cheap option.

Gerson2k

SLITHER99 wrote: »

^ I kind of imagined that being the case. I dismissed somebody myself a couple of years ago for Gross Misconduct and I remember the HR business that went on.

Cool stuff, I just wondered what options there were.

I found out that the fraud relates to the fact that as he bought a new hard disk and installed his own OS, he was freely using it as his own device and the clean OS was not subject to the IT policy employed for normal PCs supplied by the company. Basically, people are allowed to use the open WiFi for their phones, laptops, iPads, etc) and as he used the laptop sometimes with this connection and was not using it with a company supplied OS with all the group policy attached on the main network, this is what the fraud amounts to.

He does, however, have full details of the job ticket where another engineer had decomissioned and replaced the device and sent the laptop off to recycle.

Very loose definition of fraud?

Most public organisations now collaborate with central government and have in place secure connections to share information, for this to exists they have to sign up to the GovConnect CoCo (code of connections), reading the above could they have thrown the book at your friend for breaching the code when connecting what is effectively a non-compliant device to the network?

colino

I think that while you stress the "culture" of the organisation frequently that will not be the rule. For whatever reason they have now exercised that rule and sacked him. No matter the guff often spouted about references, if he is daft enough to use this employer as a source of a reference, unless the present conditions change, they will be entitled, quite happily to state the position and role, period of employment and of course sacked for theft and fraud.
He either has to be more robust about challenging the grounds for sacking or move on.

sho_me_da_money

Providing he can prove the process was adopted by the company and others have adhered to the same without question, then I reckon he has a good case.

Data protection isn't an issue if the HDDs are wiped before being placed in a cage.

The company will have to prove that this practice was not authorised by them. I suggest your mate rallies up a bunch of witness statements from past beneficiarie and any emails where this process may have been explained.

The problem is, I don't buy that after a month of investigating they sacked him for it based on the reasons you have explained. You sure he didnt get a swanky laptop and submit it in for recycling and then played the "someone else booked it in" card?

miduck

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

I suggest your mate rallies up a bunch of witness statements from past beneficiarie and any emails where this process may have been explained.

How many people do you think will agree to do this, putting their own jobs on the line in the process?

keyser666

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Well, he said "fraud" but I didn't think of this at the time. That does raise questions in my head and in my mind, he's not the type to do that. And I've seen the laptop in question. No way was it in service life. In fact, the RAM had already been liberated before he got to it. I can only imagine they've implied that he got to the spreadsheet and made alterations to it, however from what I know, I don't believe he would have had that sort of permission to make that change.

I used to work there a LONG time ago too. So as for witnesses, sure I picked off a few things myself in my year there in very much the same way. So I do know the process. I resigned after it was obvious the commute was too much, but one day, when I mentioned I was about to buy a new monitor, my supervisor at the time took me over to said cage area and told me to take what I wanted! I walked out with a monitor and a desktop machine for someone else without so much as even a bat of an eyelid. It was the culture. So as for witness, sure thing, here I am!

I've no idea where either managers are now, it's been a decade since i was there.

It was a standard dismissal type meeting where they put him on consult for a month, brought him back in and dismissed him.

Just to ask about this mutually agreed reference. It just so happens I currently hold a position where I see references. Would a mutually agreed reference look any different to a standard normal reference?

I have read through this thread and have worked as a contractor in several public organistations within the IT dept and this is a normal occurance and does save them money in having to dispose of goods under the WEEE directive. Agredd all HDD's are removed and either drilled or they are killdisk'd or ghost killed.

Again with the spreadsheet this is normally password protected or placed on a volume under a directory whereby most staff dont have access but however depending on their security membership within AD and their admin account access depends on whether they have access to this or not.

Not sure where to go here in terms of his dismissal though there are far more knowledgable people on here than me. It might be worth posting over on CAG too as I know Eleche is posting over there.

I think what they need to do is appeal first and foremost as they having nothing to lose in doing so. I think the only way the appeal will suceed is if you can prove or highlight a previous time this was done by others and noone else had the same sanction. Also if someone else has had this occur then what was their sanction? Was it the same or less?

A Couple of things I have thought of is when these items are placed on the spreadsheet normally there is a field whereby it is stated whether the item went to the disposal company or whether it went to someone else. Did he if this is the process there email someone to update the sheet or not?

Also when he had his disciplinary you said someone saw him off site with the item, so I assume he made a full and frank admission? Because obviously they had no way of taking the goods from his possession?