Gross Misconduct Investigation

Another_not_new_user

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

You are grossly exagerating the potential costs involved though I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

OP, I would suggest if she is a union member she speaks to them, if she has household insurance look if there is legal cover.

She may also want to read up on settlement agreements as whilst the company might feel they have the right to dismiss they might practically look at a small pay off (check on maternity pay etc) and an agreed reference saves them any future hassle and defending of a tribunal claim.

I agree that if she is actually willing to give up her employment, a settlement agreement may be a viable way forward - there does seem to be some question in the OP's mind as to whether she ever wanted to return after her maternity leave. But it is a decision that needs to be committed to - once you enter into such discussions you can't easily go back, so she would need to be clear that she doesn't want to go back no matter what happens.

PHILANTHROPIST

Quote ...... it needs to be underlined here that the employer has brought no allegations yet, and may not do so. An investigation does not mean that allegations will be brought. And unless the employer brings an allegation of gross misconduct and dismisses (there being no reason why even gross misconduct must automatically lead to dismissal) then there is no case of anything at all.[/QUOTE]

Agree with ANNU'S views re above, but I maintain that the employee needs to take some degree of control ... now. A fair proportion of the rest of ANNU's input / diatribe appears to be cup half empty, an approach to which the member is of course entitled.

getmore4less

If I read this right someone that suspected their employer is not happy with them was actively engaged in something that was obviously enhancing there chances of getting other work using company email computers and time.

They seem to be senior so where is this quiet periods coming from.

Marktheshark

I would say put something on the table to bargain with.
Make a formal written grievance that since she revealed she is pregnant she believes the company has started an attempt to either sack her via false allegations or force her to resign contrary to the Equality Act of 2010 .
Has to go in writing and before this meeting, which sounds like it might be a terminal affair.
Once they sack her, any tribunal would want to know why you did not raise the grievance points whilst you were employed.
It might not change what happens but it might help bringing a claim for discrimination under the equality act a realistic possibility.
It might also convince them to back off as they will be aware as all employers are, that grievence posted during employment carries the weight of 100 posted after your sacked.

getmore4less

Remember that the company needed to plan for a potential 12month maternity of a senior, redistribution of their responsibilities is a valid approach to avoid cover.

Only if they took normal maternity would the company need to reinstate the old job.

Another_not_new_user

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Quote ...... it needs to be underlined here that the employer has brought no allegations yet, and may not do so. An investigation does not mean that allegations will be brought. And unless the employer brings an allegation of gross misconduct and dismisses (there being no reason why even gross misconduct must automatically lead to dismissal) then there is no case of anything at all.

Agree with ANNU'S views re above, but I maintain that the employee needs to take some degree of control ... now. A fair proportion of the rest of ANNU's input / diatribe appears to be cup half empty, an approach to which the member is of course entitled.[/QUOTE]





I am used to your personal jibes when the truth is pointed out - perhaps the OP would like to consider on balance whether someone who resorts to personal attacks when faced with no argument is someone they wish to depend on. I am not the person suggesting that I will represent someone if they contact me (off board) or that I would know a barrister (who would charge them) if they would like to contact me (off board).




Control of what exactly though? The employer has checked their timesheets. The employer has checked their expenses claims. The employer believes there is misconduct to investigate and is therefore investigating it (and hopefully does not know what we know, or they will have actual evidence of misconduct!). And this, you think, is the firm basis for a complaint of discrimination? Isn't this sort of attempt to muddy the waters by claiming something for which there is patently no evidence exactly why the tribunals system has got so hard and so expensive for employees? There are no white hats and black hats here. Not all employers are bad, and not all employees are good. A fact which the employer here seems to recognise by trusting their employees with an honesty box rather than the easier solution - no personal use, at any time, for any reason.


Simply entering into a diatribe with the employer that this is all discrimination when it is not, or not provable, has other consequences than the ones that you so confidently assert will be the outcome. Some employers will simply dig their heels in and refuse to budge - which is one reason why so many discrimination claims lose, because employers simply will not roll over. It is a big assumption that such a claim will do anything other than harden their resolve against the OP's friend. It may result in the employer becoming less amenable to trust their employees (and we have no evidence that isn't why they are now checking timesheets and expenses claims more carefully - nobody who fills them in correctly has anything to fear from such checks) - the honesty box and all personal use of the employers equipment may be out of the window for a start. And then there is the reinforcing of employers fears that employing certain groups will only result in them claiming discrimination each time they feel like it - and the consequent and entirely coincidental drying up of employment for those groups.


If the OP's friend wants to "take control" then she deserves to be fully informed about the fact that it may not work out the way she would like it to. It may mean it is more likely that the employer dismisses while they have the chance (assuming they have the evidence, which I have not done).




None of which is relevant to the point of my post - you suggested that the OP or their friend take advice off the board so that you or a mate of yours could represent them. Free or not, that is not advisable, and not something which the forum supports.

Nicki

It is by no means the first time philanthropist has solicited this. Nor that he has advised a discrimination claim exists when there is nothing to support this.

He has a tendency to disparage solicitors in particular on these boards and to suggest his half baked advice is better than anything available on the high street backed with qualifications and professional indemnity insurance (to say nothing of an understanding of the law and the willingness to give honest assessments of the merits of a case).

These things are rarely a case of cup half empty or cup half full lawyers as he is suggesting. A good lawyer will advise you if your case is weak, because the personal, financial and professional consequences of proceeding with a palpably false claim can be immense. If the client is still determined to press ahead knowing all of those risks, most solicitors would be prepared to represent them just not on a no-win no-fee basis. Failing to advise your client correctly that they are on a hiding to nothing though isn't being "cup half full" it's being downright negligent on the part of the adviser!

quinndelfre

Nicki wrote: »

It is by no means the first time philanthropist has solicited this. Nor that he has advised a discrimination claim exists when there is nothing to support this.

He has a tendency to disparage solicitors in particular on these boards and to suggest his half baked advice is better than anything available on the high street backed with qualifications and professional indemnity insurance (to say nothing of an understanding of the law and the willingness to give honest assessments of the merits of a case).

These things are rarely a case of cup half empty or cup half full lawyers as he is suggesting. A good lawyer will advise you if your case is weak, because the personal, financial and professional consequences of proceeding with a palpably false claim can be immense. If the client is still determined to press ahead knowing all of those risks, most solicitors would be prepared to represent them just not on a no-win no-fee basis. Failing to advise your client correctly that they are on a hiding to nothing though isn't being "cup half full" it's being downright negligent on the part of the adviser!

I have noticed philanthropist seems desperate for business. Always alleging solicitors are incompetent, talking like he can guarantee whoever he helps will win their case, and wants to give advice privately so no one can criticise him. Perhaps these days solicitors are taking too much money away from barristers and he's afraid he'll be forced to declare bankruptcy when he can't pay his chamber expenses. :eek:

Another_not_new_user

quinndelfre wrote: »

Perhaps these days solicitors are taking too much money away from barristers and he's afraid he'll be forced to declare bankruptcy when he can't pay his chamber expenses. :eek:

That is assuming that you believe that there are any to pay. It is easy to hint at being an expert or a lawyer or always winning cases. On a forum it is impossible to know, other than making an assessment based on the advice given. There are very good laymen out there; and also very bad lawyers. On here there are only anonymous posters who can claim to be anything they want.


Personally, I think I am opting for the Queen of Sheba, or perhaps Cleopatra (the film version, not the real one!).....

Marktheshark

The "just see" approach is more akin with local authority employees who have a multi layered system for employers to navigate.

Questioning the employee and then dismissing them immediately at the meeting is more common in the private sector and yes firms do try to sack people that they might have to pay maternity pay and hire temps to cover.