Gross Misconduct Investigation

JethroUK

bouicca21 wrote: »

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.

I agree with most of what you are saying but I think there is enough evidence right here in this thread to suggest that this particular individual is being "singled-out" irrespective of existing company rules and regs

Takeaway_Addict

JethroUK wrote: »

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



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

Oh dear...how does an employer choose between two internal candidates for a new job? They discriminate legally.

JethroUK

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Oh dear...how does an employer choose between two internal candidates for a new job? They discriminate legally.

What has legal discrimination got to do with anything i said???????

Rhetorical

NUTTIN AT ALL

Another_not_new_user

JethroUK wrote: »

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



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

I do not teach Equal Opportunities. I do something far more useful with the law. And you are WRONG. There is NO law on victimisation in employment outside of discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics and/ or membership or non-membership of a trades union / asserting a legal right. Full stop. There is no victimisation outside these categories of employment law.


But don't worry - the standard of your post indicates that you really aren't teaching anything. In school maybe, but I was kind of hoping that educational standards were improving. Obviously not. "Ner ni ner..."?? Oh dear.

FBaby

I agree with most of what you are saying but I think there is enough evidence right here in this thread to suggest that this particular individual is being "singled-out" irrespective of existing company rules and regs

Maybe you would be kind enough to cite which evidence that is? Especially considering someone else was done for the same reason later. They lost the case on a technicality, but that clearly shows OP's friend wasn't singled out.

getmore4less

Where do senior managers work on the clock?

Lady007

Seems as if the company is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and is typical discriminatory behaviour. Sex discrimination and victimization are the claims to be brought. If the person is brave enough resign immediately and claim constructive dismissal as well.

Make sure you read all of the policies they have surrounding email and internet usage. If the policy says you can not use it at all then fair enough but it is definitely not a case of gross misconduct. Read the disciplinary policy which should give examples of gross misconduct. Some form of warning would be more reasonable.

If the don't sack the person they will try and make her Redundant instead. In for a fight which ever way you look at it unfortunately. The defence is strong either way - fight them all the way including the Redundancy.

Another_not_new_user

Lady007 wrote: »

If the person is brave enough resign immediately and claim constructive dismissal as well.
.

The other way of putting this, is if they are STUPID enough. Unlike you I rarely make definitive statements based on internet posts because nobody possibly could, even in full possession of every fact. But this one I am confident on. Resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal now and the OP's friend will lose. No question at all.

Lady007

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

The other way of putting this, is if they are STUPID enough. Unlike you I rarely make definitive statements based on internet posts because nobody possibly could, even in full possession of every fact. But this one I am confident on. Resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal now and the OP's friend will lose. No question at all.

No time for debate.
I have worked in HR for over 25 year and have been called to the stand countless times.
All cases I have advised on for friends and family I have won. Last payout was this year against a very famous London hospital securing over £47k in a settlement. Even the useless lawyer said it was a no go.

Currently working as a Senior Employee Relations Officer for a organisation of over 3000 employees. Employment law is my bread and butter

What are your credentials?

Nicki

Lady007 wrote: »

No time for debate.
I have worked in HR for over 25 year and have been called to the stand countless times.
All cases I have advised on for friends and family I have won. Last payout was this year against a very famous London hospital securing over £47k in a settlement. Even the useless lawyer said it was a no go.

Currently working as a Senior Employee Relations Officer for a organisation of over 3000 employees. Employment law is my bread and butter

What are your credentials?

Whatever your perceived expertise in your own mind, you've still given very reckless advice. You aren't philanthropist in drag are you.

Those of us who have been around for a while have a reasonable idea who another not a new user is and her credentials, and if the guess is right they outrank yours in terms of both qualifications and years of experience