Possible Dismissal for Gross Misconduct

Smodlet

steampowered wrote: »

This has always been the case.

The traditional common law position was that employment contracts are deemed to be "at will", meaning that both sides can terminate the contract at any time. There wouldn't even be a notice period unless the employer and employee had agreed that in their contract.

I'm not 100% of the history, but I think that changed when parliament passed the Employment Rights Act 1996, which introduced minimum notice periods and the concept of 'unfair dismissal'. You used to only need 1 year's service; but that was increased to 2 years during David Cameron's parliament.

You said it yourself, they used to need a reason to fire people and now, apparently, they don't. Employees' rights are being eroded and I find this disgusting.

lincroft1710

Smodlet wrote: »

Employees' rights are being eroded and I find this disgusting.

Employees' rights have been eroded. It's a done deal.

Otherwise I agree with your post

Undervalued

Smodlet wrote: »

You said it yourself, they used to need a reason to fire people and now, apparently, they don't. Employees' rights are being eroded and I find this disgusting.

No they didn't!

The length of time to qualify for protection against unfair dismissal has gone up and down over the years. At one point it was as low as six months. For a long while is was one year. Currently it is two years (but it has been that high in the past). If an employee has worked for less than the qualifying period it has always been the case that they could be dismissed for no reason at all.

annandale

An employer doesn't need a reason to fire people. They can call pretty much rip any employees contract up. Employees rights are being eroded.

Smodlet

Undervalued wrote: »

No they didn't!

The length of time to qualify for protection against unfair dismissal has gone up and down over the years. At one point it was as low as six months. For a long while is was one year. Currently it is two years (but it has been that high in the past). If an employee has worked for less than the qualifying period it has always been the case that they could be dismissed for no reason at all.

All right! Maybe it just used to feel like that, back in the day when people, at least in the places I worked, were not fired for no reason. When they were, everyone knew the reason why... And employees did not used to have to pay for tribunals, either. That, imo, is obscene.

There seem to be some posters on here who won't be happy until everyone who is not an employer or a fat cat is on a zero hours contract. What's next? Slavery? Then again, I know there are employers who post on this forum who treat their employees extremely well. I guess it really is a lottery.

another_casualty

DrWhoFanatic2016 wrote: »

Hi so the long and short of it is i have a disciplinary tomorrow at 3pm over "Inappropriate conduct at a work social function and verbal abuse". Basically i never drink and was extremely drunk and rude.

There's a reasonably high chance (70-80%) i'll get dismissed for gross misconduct even though i've never had a single problem/disciplinary matter there.

Where do i stand in regards to jobseekers, getting another job reference wise or would i just be better off handing in my resignation?

Thanks

This thread has many tangents and opinions, so I thought I'd start back here . Hope you don't mind
I notice that you held your hands up, you accepted that you were in deep trouble and are hoping to avoid the worst.
The worst has happened unfortunately .
However , it does seem like your employers did try for a final warning, but decided against.
This may seem in hindsight , but if it were me : I would have made appt. to see boss / hr . Tell them ' I know what I did , and am sorry etc.' 'Please could you tell me the best way to still receive a reference , and would my resignation be the best way forward..'

I'll leave that part . However, you are still young and you may end up doing a completely different job in the future anyway.
Hopefully, you may not be out of employment for too long.
You've learnt the hard way . You won't do anything like that again .
Having said that , people have done worse , and still had their 9 lives.
Nobody is perfect .

Undervalued

Smodlet wrote: »

All right! Maybe it just used to feel like that, back in the day when people, at least in the places I worked, were not fired for no reason. When they were, everyone knew the reason why... And employees did not used to have to pay for tribunals, either. That, imo, is obscene.

There seem to be some posters on here who won't be happy until everyone who is not an employer or a fat cat is on a zero hours contract. What's next? Slavery? Then again, I know there are employers who post on this forum who treat their employees extremely well. I guess it really is a lottery.

But, just to play devil's advocate, when there was no fee to make a tribunal claim thousands were launched where the case had no merit at all. The employer was in a lose, lose situation as they had to either settle or spend as much or more defending the baseless claim. In all but the most exceptional circumstances they would not get their costs back.

I am not saying the pendulum hasn't swung too far but there are two sides to the argument.

Smodlet

Undervalued wrote: »

But, just to play devil's advocate, when there was no fee to make a tribunal claim thousands were launched where the case had no merit at all. The employer was in a lose, lose situation as they had to either settle or spend as much or more defending the baseless claim. In all but the most exceptional circumstances they would not get their costs back.

I am not saying the pendulum hasn't swung too far but there are two sides to the argument.

I have not said there are not, only that the situation now favours the few (the haves) more than it ever has in my lifetime and it has been skewed thus since the dawn of time. Would I get in the TARDIS and go back to the early '70s union culture? I'd like to visit but probably not to live there. Nothing alters the fact that there are too many people and not enough jobs so the have-nots lose and lose and lose. Do I want to live through a revolution? Hell, no. Do I think this country is heading for one? Probably not in the next decade but who knows?

DrWhoFanatic2016

Sorry to necro this but i've been offered an appeal on Thursday the 26th to set out a case to try get my job back, am i right in saying that if the events had happened after the social function ended (it was only 7.30 to 10.30pm) in the nightclub then it was open to the public then it'd be outwith the companys power to sack me for it?

Undervalued

DrWhoFanatic2016 wrote: »

Sorry to necro this but i've been offered an appeal on Thursday the 26th to set out a case to try get my job back, am i right in saying that if the events had happened after the social function ended (it was only 7.30 to 10.30pm) in the nightclub then it was open to the public then it'd be outwith the companys power to sack me for it?

No.

Almost all companies have a policy that staff must not do anything that might bring the company into disrepute. Even if it is not explicitly spelt out it is arguably an implied duty.

So the relevant bit is might your conduct have damaged the company's reputation?