Gross Misconduct Investigation

JethroUK

Actually - It is illegal for employers to single out an individual employee for unfair treatment (treatment unequal to other employees) under
Equal Opportunities laws
and specifically called
"Victimisation"

JethroUK

FBaby wrote: »

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.

being treated differently from other employees is an offence under the law - just reading this thread is evidence enough that "victimisation" is taking place - unless of course the company/employee can cite other employees being fired for receiving external emails

bouicca21

Fbaby, grassing up a manager because of 'picking up the tab' could be what has happened. Equally it could be a disgruntled employee who dislikes the manager, who has had a bad appraisal or who reckons they have a good shot at replacing said manager.

There just isn't enough information to know what is going on. The company may have good reason for investigating, but there is certainly a whiff of victimisation.

FBaby

bouicca21 wrote: »

Fbaby, grassing up a manager because of 'picking up the tab' could be what has happened. Equally it could be a disgruntled employee who dislikes the manager, who has had a bad appraisal or who reckons they have a good shot at replacing said manager.

There just isn't enough information to know what is going on. The company may have good reason for investigating, but there is certainly a whiff of victimisation.

Totally agree and hope I am wrong, just going on my gut feeling from what the OP has written mainly in the first post.

In the end, if you start giving hints that you are intending on going for another job after the company has paid for your maternity leave, then be smart and make sure you don't give them any reasons to consider dismissing you. She did and she will most likely struggle very much to convince a judge that they were disciminated against, especially when they have evidenced that they sacked someone else in the past for a similar breach (except this time they learnt their lesson about policies), unless that person happened to be pregnant too (in which case, the tables are certainly turned.

Another_not_new_user

JethroUK wrote: »

Actually - It is illegal for employers to single out an individual employee for unfair treatment (treatment unequal to other employees) under
Equal Opportunities laws
and specifically called
"Victimisation"

No. Actually it isn't illegal to discriminate at all. It is unlawful to discriminate because of a protected characteristic. And there is absolutely no evidence at all on this thread that unlawful discrimination has occurred. Anyone going into an employment tribunal claiming that checking their timesheets and expenses claims is unlawful discrimination is on a hiding to nothing. And we actually know for a fact (whilst the employer may not - or may suspect but have no proof of yet) that the OP's friend has been doing personal coursework in works time because we have been told that. It is not victimisation to investigate something which warrants investigation - and this does. This person was actually reported by a subordinate. Hardly a management plot. And even if it was, as I have said before, if you actually really think that management is coming after you, handing them a cause to do so is foolish. The OP's friend, whatever else may or may not have happened on either side, has handed them cause to.

Takeaway_Addict

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.

Electric........

scaredofdebt

Thanks again.

My point regards the honesty box is that by having this they are in effect saying it's OK to use company property for personal use as long as you pay the costs. The MD is aware of this system and it is widely used in the office. If you then have a policy saying you can't use company equipment for personal use then it would appear to be in direct contravention to have the honest box in place.

I have spoken to my friend about this again today and clarified some information.

She didn't think she was doing anything wrong by using email/internet as it is widespread through the office ie as a lot of people are using the honesty box facility to print things out. She thought the policy was to prevent staff taking items home overnight to 'borrow' ie tangible assets.

She has asked to see the policy that she has breached but the company is dragging its feet over providing this information. They have told her the policy is in fact spread across a number of policies. They've not provided any of these policies to date.

I've asked her about her hours and time taken to do the course work and I was slightly wrong in my initial posts as I didn't understand the finer points.

My friend is contracted to do 9am to 5:30pm with 1 hour for lunch. She rarely gets a full hour for lunch due to work pressures (lunch times are especially busy) so it she only got a 30 min lunch she would take another 30 mins later in the day to do course work, this taken only if work pressures allowed it.

On some days she does 10-20 mins extra at the end of her normal working day if business pressures dictate. She cannot bank this as lieu time as you have to have a 30 minute "chunk" to make it bankable, so she has taken any excess time worked into the following day to be used for course work.

However, she is certain that every week she will have worked at least the number of hours she is contracted to do. The company has a very laissez faire approach to this by letting people finish early the day after they've worked extra hours without needing to record this type of activity. So, if you get "stuck" behind by 10 mins on a Tuesday you can leave 10 mins early the next day etc, instead of leaving early my friend has used that time doing the course work.

Regards costs of using the computer/internet/email it will be negligible, the electricity costs would be a matter of pence as the computers are on all the time anyway.

The company has sacked two former employees due to various breaches of policy that have been found not to exist when it came to the tribunals or policies that are unclear. In both cases the company has been found to have dismissed people unfairly and they have then gone on to tighten up or actually implement policy to stop repeat occurences.

It sounds like they don't learn from their mistakes and have a rather amateurish approach to policy.

Anyway, thanks again for all the advice.

Another_not_new_user

Oh "carp" - just hope to God they can't evidence this. I told you "be objective" - you aren't there yet!

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Thanks again.

My point regards the honesty box is that by having this they are in effect saying it's OK to use company property for personal use as long as you pay the costs. But they are NOT saying you can do what you want in working time! The MD is aware of this system and it is widely used in the office. If you then have a policy saying you can't use company equipment for personal use then it would appear to be in direct contravention to have the honest box in place. And they haven't, it would seem, accused her of that.

I have spoken to my friend about this again today and clarified some information.

She didn't think she was doing anything wrong by using email/internet as it is widespread through the office ie as a lot of people are using the honesty box facility to print things out. She thought the policy was to prevent staff taking items home overnight to 'borrow' ie tangible assets. She's a senior manager - if she didn't understand the policies, she should have sought clarification.

She has asked to see the policy that she has breached but the company is dragging its feet over providing this information. They have told her the policy is in fact spread across a number of policies. They've not provided any of these policies to date. And right now they don't have to. They MUST if it comes to a disciplinary.

I've asked her about her hours and time taken to do the course work and I was slightly wrong in my initial posts as I didn't understand the finer points.

My friend is contracted to do 9am to 5:30pm with 1 hour for lunch. She rarely gets a full hour for lunch due to work pressures (lunch times are especially busy) so it she only got a 30 min lunch she would take another 30 mins later in the day to do course work, this taken only if work pressures allowed it. Sorry - it doesn't work that way. She is entitled to take an hour for lunch. If she doesn't that is her own fault. She can't make it up some other time during the day and then do what she wants. If they employer can prove that she was doing coursework later in the day, this is not the balance of her lunch break - it is personal study in works time, and potentially gross misconduct. When you have a lunch break, you take it - and if you don't it does not end up in a "bank".

On some days she does 10-20 mins extra at the end of her normal working day if business pressures dictate. She cannot bank this as lieu time as you have to have a 30 minute "chunk" to make it bankable, so she has taken any excess time worked into the following day to be used for course work. And there is a policy that allows her to do this? No, of course there isn't. So again - she is doing personal coursework in works time.

However, she is certain that every week she will have worked at least the number of hours she is contracted to do. The company has a very laissez faire approach to this by letting people finish early the day after they've worked extra hours without needing to record this type of activity. So, if you get "stuck" behind by 10 mins on a Tuesday you can leave 10 mins early the next day etc, instead of leaving early my friend has used that time doing the course work. So she should have left and done the ten minutes at home having got home early. They employers argument will be that she has not done her hours because she was doing course work instead of working.

Regards costs of using the computer/internet/email it will be negligible, the electricity costs would be a matter of pence as the computers are on all the time anyway.

The company has sacked two former employees due to various breaches of policy that have been found not to exist when it came to the tribunals or policies that are unclear. In both cases the company has been found to have dismissed people unfairly and they have then gone on to tighten up or actually implement policy to stop repeat occurences.

It sounds like they don't learn from their mistakes and have a rather amateurish approach to policy.

Anyway, thanks again for all the advice.

Sorry, the more you explain the more it becomes worrying that she has gone far beyond a couple of e-mails home with work she did on a break. And given what you are saying, I can think of a number of reasons why they may be checking her timesheets more carefully than they did before. None of which involve discrimination.


You are not seeing the picture this is painting. It doesn't matter what their policies say - if they can show that she's been playing fast and loose with timekeeping to do personal business during working time ... she is in a lot of trouble. They don't even need a policy on that. It's a given - you work at work.

bouicca21

A refusal to bank time is unlikely to sit well with an employment tribunal. And even if there is a clear policy, it's a case for a warning rather than moving to gross misconduct.

And personally I think the presence of the honesty box is an indication that using company equipment is NOT ok.

The actual situation here is very murky. A whiff of victimisation, but accusations of victimisation and bullying are the first port of call for someone who has been found out.

JethroUK

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

No. Actually it isn't illegal to discriminate at all.

Errrrrrrrrrmm Yes it is - haven't you heard of VICTIMISATION

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

It is unlawful to discriminate because of a protected characteristic. .

The two are not mutually exclusive :rotfl:

Citing one law does not negate a totally different law

It is ALSO unlawful to discriminate against protected characteristics does NOT negate the FACT that it is ALSO unlawful to VICTIMISE ANY employee

If you dont know this I can't help it - but since i teach Equal Ops then I am right and you are wrong - ner ni ner ni ner ner :T