Gross Misconduct Investigation

Another_not_new_user

Marktheshark wrote: »

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.

And would also be entirely unlawful! Just because something may be common in the private sector (and it is not actually my experience of that sector), does not mean they can get away with it. If this is the case then the OP's friend has reason to be "hopeful" - as such this type of dismissal would breach the entire of ACAS guidelines and would come to an automatically unfair dismissal at tribunal.


Yes, some firms do try to dismiss people they will have to pay maternity leave to - which is why it is an awfully good idea not to walk straight into giving them a reason. Regardless of what the employer knows - and I do hope they don't know this - the OP has already told their friend they do coursework during working hours. Quiet or not doesn't matter. And we are talking about a senior manager here - if the employer didn't make an example of someone employed to enforce good discipline, then how could this manager discipline someone else for taking the !!!! during working hours. Like it or not, work time is for working. Ignore that at your own peril.

weatherlobe

I cannot give any useful or legal advice on this case but it sounds an absolutely HORRENDOUS Company to work for. An honesty box for private use of stationery? Do they have a swear box as well?
It is clear however that they are making a complete meal out of microscopic 'offences'. And if dismissal is the result I hope they get their pants sued off at a Tribunal, as no judge on earth would advocate such hard sanctions particularly if she had a hitherto clean disciplinary record. There is no sense of proportion to any of this.

Marktheshark

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

And would also be entirely unlawful! Just because something may be common in the private sector (and it is not actually my experience of that sector), does not mean they can get away with it. If this is the case then the OP's friend has reason to be "hopeful" - as such this type of dismissal would breach the entire of ACAS guidelines and would come to an automatically unfair dismissal at tribunal.


Yes, some firms do try to dismiss people they will have to pay maternity leave to - which is why it is an awfully good idea not to walk straight into giving them a reason. Regardless of what the employer knows - and I do hope they don't know this - the OP has already told their friend they do coursework during working hours. Quiet or not doesn't matter. And we are talking about a senior manager here - if the employer didn't make an example of someone employed to enforce good discipline, then how could this manager discipline someone else for taking the !!!! during working hours. Like it or not, work time is for working. Ignore that at your own peril.

Dismissing someone with immediate effect for Gross misconduct is common in most private companies.
The clue is in the name.
It does not lead to automatic anything other than the job queue.

You have a right of appeal if you chose to take it, but you are still sacked.
Looking so far the ACAS guidelines appear to be followed to the letter, investigation, internal tribunal hearing where you can state your case and outcome hearing.
The last two can be the same hearing on the same day and often are.
This is Tory Britain 2014 not Labours 1994 and taking anyone to a tribunal just got very expensive

Another_not_new_user

Conducting an investigatory meeting (questioning the employee) and running it alongside a concurrent disciplinary meeting is contrary to the ACAS guidance in any sector, and constitutes automatic unfair dismissal. The employee has a legal right to see the evidence against them prior to any meeting, and to conduct a defence - gross misconduct or not.


And for those who think that private use of company stationary, time or anything else is a "microscopic offence", then before you "borrow" something from your employer, try to recall that it is called theft. It doesn't matter whether it is a pen, the weeks takings, or the time that you are being paid to work. And that is exactly what a tribunal will say, because they have no legal right to decide what is a theft worth getting sacked for and what isn't. An employer would consider dismissal to be within the range of reasonable sanctions for theft, and therefore a dismissal on the grounds of theft of anything, no matter how small, would be upheld.

scaredofdebt

Thanks for the comments.

Re the 'honesty box' - this is saying it's OK to use company equipment as long as you pay for the costs involved. As there's no tangible cost for email/internet use (presuming they have unlimited BB) then it would be reasonable to assume the company is OK for employees to use this during their own time.

They didn't have any policy regards using company equipment until recently when another member of staff took something home with them overnight to use - this member of staff was sacked for gross misconduct due to this and won at an industrial tribunal as there was no such policy. They've brought in the policy since he was sacked. So if you can't use company equipment for personal use why is the honesty box still there?

My friend has told me that plenty of people in the office using phones for personal use during work time, internet for job hunting etc but it's one of her staff members who saw some of her course work in a file and then reported it to the boss and that's where the investigation has come into effect. She isn't certain if that's what's precipitated events but the most likely reason. She hasn't printed any of the course work out using work equipment, the vast majority of work has been done on her own computer at home.

At the end of the day it's likely to boil down to if they can prove she did the course work on company time I expect, or if they feel that she was doing it in work time in all probability.

scaredofdebt

FBaby wrote: »

Doesn't this imply some likely wrong doing though? A bit of a coincidence that them questioning time in lieu is coming up at the same time than the above.

No, the lieu time was questioned well before the course started.

They weren't questioning the lieu time itself but the way it was being reported, even though it was being reported exactly the same way that it had been for the past 7 years.

I could give other examples of how they have been treating her differently since returning to work pregnant but I am concerned about giving too much information that might identify my friend.

She did voice her concern to another manager at the time (about being treated differently) and this has been documented as the 'confidential' chat was leaked to her boss and that led to a meeting that was minuted.

getmore4less

I would have thought that someone senior that is going on maternity would not have spare time.

They should be all out preparing the business for them to be away for an extended period to make sure there is a job to come back to.

There seems to be a disconnect I wonder how long relations have been strained.

bouicca21

I think this needs to get back to basics.

If the case is that the company have strengthened scrutiny of expenses etc for everyone then it is not discrimination. If it is aimed an a single individual then it is.

If there is no internet usage policy then using email for personal purposes, within reason, is not an offence and certainly not one for a gross misconduct hearing, without a prior warning.

What provisions were put in place to alleviate stress? There is an obligation on the employer to make reasonable adjustments. Did they?

What it comes down to is the amount of work time that has been used for private purposes. Difficult to prove either way. Lunch time is one thing, 'quiet periods' sounds dodgy. Though in my line lunch times are rarely taken, so quiet times are fair game. Plus we regularly work way over our contracted hours. Is that the case for this person. Or is it a clock watching sort of place?

It may also be possible to argue that the qualification sought would enhance the quality of work for current employer, though obviously there isn't enough information hear to argue that one.

Union rep or legal adviser definitely needed. As someone has pointed out this kind of legal cover is often included in home insurance.

Ultimately much is going to depend on the employer's attitude to reputation management. Some employers are deeply worried about public perception, others aren't.

Another_not_new_user

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Thanks for the comments.

Re the 'honesty box' - this is saying it's OK to use company equipment as long as you pay for the costs involved. As there's no tangible cost for email/internet use (presuming they have unlimited BB) then it would be reasonable to assume the company is OK for employees to use this during their own time.

They didn't have any policy regards using company equipment until recently when another member of staff took something home with them overnight to use - this member of staff was sacked for gross misconduct due to this and won at an industrial tribunal as there was no such policy. They've brought in the policy since he was sacked. So if you can't use company equipment for personal use why is the honesty box still there?

My friend has told me that plenty of people in the office using phones for personal use during work time, internet for job hunting etc but it's one of her staff members who saw some of her course work in a file and then reported it to the boss and that's where the investigation has come into effect. She isn't certain if that's what's precipitated events but the most likely reason. She hasn't printed any of the course work out using work equipment, the vast majority of work has been done on her own computer at home.

At the end of the day it's likely to boil down to if they can prove she did the course work on company time I expect, or if they feel that she was doing it in work time in all probability.

No, and honesty box does not say it is ok to use company equipment when there is a policy that says it is not - and now you say that such a policy was introduced which, as a senior manager, your friend must have known, because you know it and you know why! As I pointed out previously, sometimes the hard lessons of life mean that employers get harsher when their relaxed attitudes towards employees leads to a bruising.


What other people may or may not do is not relevant - what your friend does is relevant. If your friend is aware that other people are breaking the rules or acting inappropriately during working time, then she can inform on them, but it does not make her less culpable for what she does. In fact it could make her more culpable if, as a senior manager, she knows these things and lets people get away with it. So personally I wouldn't suggest using what other people do as a defence as it may make my hole deeper.


But yes, in the end it is very simple - it comes down to whether they can prove or come to a reasonable belief that she has either clearly broken a policy, or that she has done personal course work during working hours. If the files remain on the server, that is possible to do - but whether they know how to is another matter, although I wouldn't bet on that.


One other thing - there is no such thing as a confidential chat with work colleagues. She keeps her own counsel in future. Anything you do or say can be reported, as she has found out to her own cost.


At this stage she needs to await the outcome of the investigation. There is little that can be done until then, except for one final piece of advice. She needs to consider carefully what, in a worst case scenario, the employer might find out. Because when she is questioned, the worst thing she can do is get caught telling a lie, closely followed by admitting something they don't know already. It isn't easy to achieve that balance so she does need to think about how she could respond to anything they might find.

FBaby

I think there is rarely smoke without fire and after years with the company, it would be very odd they would make a fuss unless something was truly amiss.

You are implying that she is being discriminated for being pregnant, but then say it is a member of her staff who has reported her. This would be much more the action of someone who has to pick up the tab for a manager who isn't doing their job because they are focussed on something else rather than a staff who has an issue with their manager being pregnant.

I don't think they have to prove that she was working on her course when she should have been doing her job, just have enough evidence to make it probable.