Finding a job following dismissal for gross misconduct

paulineb_2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Sounds like a clear cut case of constructive dismissal to me!
(Nothing like the OP's case, of course)

It would have been if I had had the required service, but I had only been employed for 10 months or so.

Anyway, she did me a massive favour. Her gym went bust, that was always on the cards and Im back working freelance and doing well and most of all, Im happy as I dont need to see her (she was hard work, understatement of the century).

AP007

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if that "defence" causes the employer to re-instate.

I am talking about what they say at the interviews not to the one who fired the OP.

[Deleted User]

AP007 wrote: »

I am talking about what they say at the interviews not to the one who fired the OP.

Ah, others were advising using that as part of an appeal. Apologies.

AP007

paulineb wrote: »

In my view, gross misconduct is something like theft, violence, fraud, turning up for work drunk or on drugs (am aware some employers may be sympathetic to people with addiction issues). But sometimes employers call anything gross misconduct just to get rid of people.

I know someone who got a final written warning (no warnings previously) for not wanting to sit on reception when all the other office members went to lunch together.

A company can have an unlimited things on the GM list to use.

BillJones

AP007 wrote: »

I would have probably told them in advance if that's what you are going to do when you get to the interview.

I wouldn't hire someone who had been fired for GM sorry.

You are long term employed, though, so not really in any position to understand what employers tend to want in an employee.

AP007

BillJones wrote: »

You are long term employed, though, so not really in any position to understand what employers tend to want in an employee.

Wow how nice of you.

I do know they don't want the unemployed but as a hiring manager at my last job I do know what my old firm would want. If they look better at someone with a GM over their head then what can I say.

Who here as a hiring manager would interview someone who was fired for GM if you knew this before they get in the door?

[Deleted User]

BillJones wrote: »

You are long term employed, though, so not really in any position to understand what employers tend to want in an employee.

Are you seriously suggesting that only the long term UNemployed understand what employers want in an employee?

AP007 wrote:

Who here as a hiring manager would interview someone who was fired for GM if you knew this before they get in the door?

It wouldn't be at the top of my list of personal qualities and experience required, that's for sure!
The fact is that people who are sacked do manage to get new jobs, but the Op will likely have to accept a lower status and salary, at least at the outset, and then gradually build up new trust and reputation at her new firm.

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

Wow how nice of you.

I do know they don't want the unemployed but as a hiring manager at my last job I do know what my old firm would want. If they look better at someone with a GM over their head then what can I say.

Who here as a hiring manager would interview someone who was fired for GM if you knew this before they get in the door?

Someone with GM over their head may get through the door and then convince hiring managers they are the best candidate over someone who is unemployed and out of touch.

[Deleted User]

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Someone with GM over their head may get through the door and then convince hiring managers they are the best candidate over someone who is unemployed and out of touch.

That's a bit uncharitable to the unemployed, I certainly wouldn't employ someone who has been sacked over someone who is unemployed through no fault of their own. Don't forget the fired person is unemployed too!

The fact is that being sacked is a great handicap to overcome, but it's not insurmountable-otherwise dismissed people would never work again!

sensibleadvice

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

That's a bit uncharitable to the unemployed, I certainly wouldn't employ someone who has been sacked over someone who is unemployed through no fault of their own. Don't forget the fired person is unemployed too!

The fact is that being sacked is a great handicap to overcome, but it's not insurmountable-otherwise dismissed people would never work again!

Why uncharitable? It's certainly true that some sacked for GM get other jobs, some quite quickly. I meant longer term unemployed but take your point. In which case begs the question do employers prefer recent unemployed with mitigated GM over LT unemployed.