Possible sacking facing gross misconduct

Gavin78

My has been a teaching assistant for around 15 years (5 years) in current school

She has been pulled into the office and given a management instruction for repeated lates around 15 in total since November last year and was advice if she was late again it would go to a disciplinary

(this was because our daughter 2 who goes to the nursery attached to the school was having problems integrating into the room and was making her late while she settled her despite setting off early to try and make a difference)

Of course things are ok now she's settled in.

She approached the head with concerns that her sign in sheet times had been altered this was the day after the management instruction. however she tried to approach him 2 days prior to this getting issued but he was in meetings. when she did finally speak to him he said he was aware who had done it and made reference to the name. and it was left at that.

There is also another issue she started a Uni place a year ago and asked for thursday afternoons out and they approved this. however a year later the head teacher pulled her into the office to ask about her course and wanted some proof she was still attending so she got the course tutor to speak with him over the phone.

She then got a letter 2 weeks later to say that he was putting her in for a disciplinary for "dishonesty" by which she had end of May-July out and it wasn't semester time and she was getting paid for this which she had been mis-leading.

My wife tried to explain to him that when she asked for thurs afternoons off she just assumed that out of semester time when not attending lectures she could utilize this time for study and never thought anything of it when originally asking for the time off.

She stated to him that their online calendar they use to book time out that all the staff can see inc him was never questioned it when she put down the whole times she was out and there was never any questions raised at the time they talked about the course what the details were or days she should have been in or out and stupidly made the assumption that all thursday afternoons were out till the course finished. but he wasn't having any of it.

So he has inc the lates and the dishonesty into the disciplinary when they had a meeting with the union the other day. he also stated that my wife had been putting the wrong times into the sign in book e.g she signed in at 9.07 but wrote 9.01 and had done it on a number of occasions and the office staff had witness this. however before this as explained above she had approached the head and stated that she noted her times had been changed in the book and was concerned who was doing this after he admitted who it was there was no more said.

Her union as told her not to speak with him anymore about anything unless it is work related to the pupils and to keep a very close eye on the sign in book as they head and office manager are closing ranks.

Not sure how to approach this subject in the meeting?

Guest101

1: Keep own register for arrival times
2: If she's been paid a wage for the time she was at uni, then indeed that is dishonest and she rightly should be sacked. But if she is paid pro-rata and her work pattern is just that she doesn't work Thursday afternoons then it is not dishonest in the slightest.
3: bring a union rep into the disciplinary?

agrinnall

In addition to Guest's point 1, I would suggest that she writes the time in words as well as figures, it's easy to change 1 to 7 but not so easy to change one to seven.

Gavin78

Guest101 wrote: »

1: Keep own register for arrival times
2: If she's been paid a wage for the time she was at uni, then indeed that is dishonest and she rightly should be sacked. But if she is paid pro-rata and her work pattern is just that she doesn't work Thursday afternoons then it is not dishonest in the slightest.
3: bring a union rep into the disciplinary?

1. Yeah she is starting to do this

2. She works Mon-Fri and Thurs afternoons would normally be paid and was paid about a total of £140 over this time period (she worked that out herself) however there seems to be some confusion with the time she understood to be allowed out and what the head has decided (her union) asked whether at the time there was any agreements drawn up or times discussed so it was clear to both parties what was considered time out and he said no it was a verbal conversation that she was attending Uni for this course. He assumed that she would have been in school when the Uni semester was over but he'd never asked for any details on the course. till a year later by which my wife had said to him that she thought she was allowed out to continue her Uni work till the course was finished even outside of the semester period.

3. She first has to attend a recorded meeting with HR the investigating officer which will be after easter her union will be with her and after the meeting they will decide if it should go to a disciplinary.


4. Her union has suggested she gets something written from the Uni lecturer in her support which she has been backed 100% by them because some the days outside of the semester she has had some guidance from the lectures as they are in all year round so can vouch that she has been in the Uni as she has had some meetings with them outside the semester periods.

Her Union has suggested that when speaking to the HR officer that they ask that there be some consideration put in place when making a decision to the circumstances surrounding this as there seems to be some confusion to both parties on their understanding of what was considered time out and the time scale it has taken to get to this point with something that could have been dealt with at the start of this course to avoid the situation they are in now. The union person has suggested that they could make an offer to make payment back for the time out via external payment to pay back the loss the school has had.

She said she is going to try and get damage limitation out of it so it isn't gross misconduct in the event she loses her job.

ohreally

If there is ambiguity this should work against the employer.

http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-383-2653

Gavin78

ohreally wrote: »

If there is ambiguity this should work against the employer.

http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-383-2653

Sorry for sounding dim I've read it but is the for or against her?

I know a lot of people reading this it might sound like she just thought yeah paid time off from work but she didn't she was home late sometimes after spending a good few hours in there on those days. She wouldn't throw 15 years away and all this Uni time for trying to steal hours from work.

The strange thing is that the head has access to the time sheets of all staff as he prints them out weekly they use office 365 to input into the calendar so in the staff briefings they know who is in and out and who to get cover for so my wife had filled out the calendar to say she was out Jan-July at the start of January that year so it wasn't like it was planned at a later date that she took these extra days she filled the calendar out as soon as she got the go ahead from the uni to do the course.

So when the head was asked why after seeing she was out the first few weeks out of semester time why didn't she say something. he refused to comment and brushed it off to talk about something else

glentoran99

Gavin78 wrote: »

Sorry for sounding dim I've read it but is the for or against her?

I know a lot of people reading this it might sound like she just thought yeah paid time off from work but she didn't she was home late sometimes after spending a good few hours in there on those days. She wouldn't throw 15 years away and all this Uni time for trying to steal hours from work.

The strange thing is that the head has access to the time sheets of all staff as he prints them out weekly they use office 365 to input into the calendar so in the staff briefings they know who is in and out and who to get cover for so my wife had filled out the calendar to say she was out Jan-July at the start of January that year so it wasn't like it was planned at a later date that she took these extra days she filled the calendar out as soon as she got the go ahead from the uni to do the course.

So when the head was asked why after seeing she was out the first few weeks out of semester time why didn't she say something. he refused to comment and brushed it off to talk about something else

For her, if the wording of her permission to the time off didn't specify it was just for attending classes then the ambiguity favours the person who didn't draft it

ohreally

Gavin78 wrote: »

Sorry for sounding dim I've read it but is the for or against her?

If there is uncertainty in the agreement, your wife should be the beneficiary of that.

Takeaway_Addict

Re the sign in book....why not take a picture each time after she signs in? Just make sure the phone has a date stamp.

FBaby

Sorry but I think she has been completely dishonest. She was allowed to take time off PAID to do her course. Why would it even cross her mind to think that they would pay her when she is not on the course?

You say that she assumed she was allowed the time to continue her Uni work...when her classes were finished, really? And she had meetings each of the 6+ Thursday she didn't have a course for a few hours? Really?

She was extremely lucky to have been given paid time off to study and yet she chose to abuse that privilege, that's really poor professionalism. As for her being late regularly because she had to settle your daughter, that just isn't acceptable. Many parents have to leave their kids upset because they have to rush to be on time to work. That's life when you're a working parent. Again, it shows a lack of commitment and it is not surprising the Head is fed up with her at this stage.

tomtontom

It sounds like the head didn't see the need for a written agreement because he trusted your OH. That trust is now gone. If she keeps her job it will be down to a technicality, not because she has not done something wrong. She needs to start looking elsewhere, as they will understandably be looking for a reason to get rid of her.