Prep for Disciplinary hearing

nicechap

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Because he has said it wasn't sent on and shared.Its been admitted the recipient sent it back to the originator so its been sent at least twice. There is nothing to show it hasn't or won't be sent again He may be lying, but it would seem unlikely. Why on earth would he want to share it? With who? Have you never been on Facebook & seen the minutae and pointless stuff posted on there? It's like sending a text to someone; they can copy it and send it on, but why would they? Because that's what people on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook do - share pictures of cats, babies and any & everything And even if it was shared, which it wasn't, it's extremely unlikely anyone in the company would know that. That's a big assumption, try googling your company or organisation name with the word twitter or facebook and see how many entries are found.

His friend has an app that saves all his snapchat messages; it's not making a value judgement. But it saving something that wasn't supposed to be saved - just like youngsters are waqrned not to send intimate pictures of themselves because there are apps or software like this to immortalise inappropriate behaviour

Anyway, the message isn't the point, which is where I was trying to get to. It's the actual act of taking the photo he is in trouble for.

Given the update by the OP, I wonder if the company now have a copy of the picture. If they have an IT wizard they will be able to see what electronic headers and footers and other embedded information are in the file to see when it was saved (if it was days after the alleged offence I can understand the photoshopped reference) and on what device/ software it was saved.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Undervalued wrote: »

It seems clear to me. He took a photograph in his place of work featuring bars in such a way as to make it look like a prison. He then added a "funny" caption suggesting that it was a prison! He sent that to a non employee, thus bringing the firm into disrepute. Pretty much everything else is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how the employer found out, or even if they did find out, providing they have a reasonable belief that is what he did.

Whilst some employers would simply ignore it, or tell him to grow up, plenty of others would treat that sort of behaviour as gross misconduct.

As I said, harsh but legally fair.

I don't believe it has anything to do with the caption. What has he said that makes you think it has? That wasn't even mentioned in his latest post saying that his son had been sacked - in fact, they refused to believe that that photo (and presumably caption) were what he had actually sent.

It appears that the misconduct is taking a photo of a baby and/or lying about his colleagues who reported him. The prison remark does not appear to be part of it. I don't know why everyone keeps insisting that it is.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nicechap wrote: »

? Because that's what people on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook do - share pictures of cats, babies and any & everything,

No they don't. I am one such person. I don't. Most don't share everything. Snapchat isn't Facebook.

nicechap wrote: »

That's a big assumption, try googling your company or organisation name with the word twitter or facebook and see how many entries are found.

Snapchat isn't Facebook and the company name was nowhere in the message

nicechap wrote: »

But it saving something that wasn't supposed to be saved - just like youngsters are waqrned not to send intimate pictures of themselves because there are apps or software like this to immortalise inappropriate behaviour

If it's what he claimed it was then it was an incredibly dull joke of no interest to the person who received it, let alone anybody else.

nicechap wrote: »

Given the update by the OP, I wonder if the company now have a copy of the picture. If they have an IT wizard they will be able to see what electronic headers and footers and other embedded information are in the file to see when it was saved (if it was days after the alleged offence I can understand the photoshopped reference) and on what device/ software it was saved.

They say it's not real anyway. They can't say it's not real and also discipline him for sending it.

He saw the photo and the message as his defence. It is not what he is being sacked for. They claim he didn't send that message and are sacking him for something else.

Undervalued

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I don't believe it has anything to do with the caption. What has he said that makes you think it has? That wasn't even mentioned in his latest post saying that his son had been sacked - in fact, they refused to believe that that photo (and presumably caption) were what he had actually sent.

It appears that the misconduct is taking a photo of a baby and/or lying about his colleagues who reported him. The prison remark does not appear to be part of it. I don't know why everyone keeps insisting that it is.

Well it seems "everyone" is out of step with you! I still favour the majority view.

tommytynan123

The letter that arrived today went through each piece of evidence and commented whether it was valid or not etc. (In summary - main bits here below)
1. Because an employee saw a photo that she says had a baby in it then what he produced must have been fabricated and therefore a breach of trust. They have no photo. On the day in question the corridor, where this happened, had some piles of box's and flyers piled on the floor which is not the norm. His photo shows them visible through the bars of the trolley. CCTV shows the same boxes etc in the same position and layout.
2. The witness claims she picked up the baby and that son put it down (I assume she means after she had passed the baby to him?) CCTV shows that to be a complete lie.
3. The witness claims that messages from her on the day to son were not sent so must be made-up. In effect he managed to create some message pages on a PC and print off. He now has absolute evidence that they were genuine. I won't bore you with the details.
(Final statement from employer)
''In your defence you described your behaviour as boisterous. I do not see how making a phallic gesture to a child and taking a picture is boisterous. It is not conduct becoming an employee or manager at XXXXXX. Had the parent witnessed your actions, irrelevent of your alleged content of the picture, this had the potential to bring the company into disrepute.
Therefore it is decided that your conduct was unsatisfactory and that you are dismissed for gross misconduct.''

Then the appeal bits which he is following to appeal etc. If the appeal fails then its a tribunal with full legal help which I can fund.
Onwards we go.

Masomnia

Probably should edit out the name of employer.

But phallic gesture?! Says more about the hearing manager than your son, I think!

Definitely appeal, and then get on to ACAS.

Good luck.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Undervalued wrote: »

Well it seems "everyone" is out of step with you! I still favour the majority view.

Well, you will see from the OP's latest update that it has absolutely nothing to do with the prison comment so it seems "everyone" was wrong and I was right.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Masomnia wrote: »

Probably should edit out the name of employer.

But phallic gesture?! Says more about the hearing manager than your son, I think!

Definitely appeal, and then get on to ACAS.

Good luck.

I believe that it is far more likely that the OP is not getting anything like an accurate picture of events from his son. This story has not made sense from the outset. It's taken us this long to find out about the "phallic gesture" when that was clearly the central point of the disciplinary charge in the first place.

Masomnia

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I believe that it is far more likely that the OP is not getting anything like an accurate picture of events from his son. This story has not made sense from the outset. It's taken us this long to find out about the "phallic gesture" when that was clearly the central point of the disciplinary charge in the first place.

You may well be right!

OP if your son does pursue it then he needs to realise that lying to you, ACAS or a solicitor is just lying to himself!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

tommytynan123 wrote: »

The letter that arrived today went through each piece of evidence and commented whether it was valid or not etc. (In summary - main bits here below)
1. Because an employee saw a photo that she says had a baby in it then what he produced must have been fabricated and therefore a breach of trust. They have no photo. On the day in question the corridor, where this happened, had some piles of box's and flyers piled on the floor which is not the norm. His photo shows them visible through the bars of the trolley. CCTV shows the same boxes etc in the same position and layout.
2. The witness claims she picked up the baby and that son put it down (I assume she means after she had passed the baby to him?) CCTV shows that to be a complete lie.
3. The witness claims that messages from her on the day to son were not sent so must be made-up. In effect he managed to create some message pages on a PC and print off. He now has absolute evidence that they were genuine. I won't bore you with the details.
(Final statement from employer)
''In your defence you described your behaviour as boisterous. I do not see how making a phallic gesture to a child and taking a picture is boisterous. It is not conduct becoming an employee or manager at . Had the parent witnessed your actions, irrelevent of your alleged content of the picture, this had the potential to bring the company into disrepute.
Therefore it is decided that your conduct was unsatisfactory and that you are dismissed for gross misconduct.''

Then the appeal bits which he is following to appeal etc. If the appeal fails then its a tribunal with full legal help which I can fund.
Onwards we go.

Have you see the CCTV? How do you know it's a complete lie?

You are likely to be throwing your money away if you try and fund a tribunal. I strongly suspect your son is not telling you the complete story because he doesn't want to look like an idiot to you. He's come home knowing he's been stupid and given you a sanitised version of events; you have jumped on it and started trying to run the disciplinary when you really don't have the full facts and are therefore telling him to do the wrong things. By now he is too deep in to tell you the truth. This is my belief; take it or leave it.