Prep for Disciplinary hearing

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Undervalued wrote: »

He took a photo and sent it with a caption to a third party mocking his place of work.

To quote the OP.....



To compound the problem it included a customer's baby (or at least the baby's push chair).

But how does anyone know he was mocking his place of work, or that he sent the photo anywhere? CCTV wouldn't show that. Was the employee who saw it looking over his shoulder and reading his texts?

It hasn't been captured and distributed further; they expressly say

"Being snapchat it is not social media and photos self-destruct after 10 seconds? Employers do not have a copy and their only proof is the witness statements and CCTV. Son does have a copy as his friend has some app that saves them. It has never appeared on social media. "


The baby bit wouldn't fall into the category of bringing the company into disrepute.

Geoff1963

I think someone needs to explain how the son's action did ( or might have ) constituted the company's accusation.

The photo might have included the baby and the company name and been widely distributed ; but none of those are true. The company might have a "no photos" policy, in which case even innocent / complimentary images wouldn't be allowed.

A disciplinary action is supposed to prompt a change of behaviour, so that learning needs to be quite specific.

Masomnia

I would have thought that the CCTV would show that he did not take a photograph of the baby. That's an assumption on my part though.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Masomnia wrote: »

I would have thought that the CCTV would show that he did not take a photograph of the baby. That's an assumption on my part though.

Taking a photograph of a baby might be a dismissable offence, but not for bringing your employer into disrepute, which is what we are told he has been accused of. And if that is what it is, then why all the nonsense about the text?

The only way this makes sense to me is if the witness has actually read his text on his phone screen as he typed it; and has then gone and reported him for sending a private text message to his friend. But that seems too absurd to be possible.

Geoff1963

But that seems too absurd to be possible.

This is employment law remember ; like The Twilight Zone, but with fewer rules.

montyrebel

taking pictures of random babies is very creepy to me, I would be worried about your son becoming even worse in future

ohreally

In an A v B/ Salford v Roldan type case, Tykocki v Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0081/16 emphasised that procedural defects where the decision has a serious effect on the employee can affect the fairness of a dismissal, even if these defects are rectified at the appeal stage

..........

Geoff1963

taking pictures of random babies

What about pictures of random bits of shopping trolleys ?

There is a worrying trend of "upskirting" ; but no-one seems bothered about people taking photos of a pavement.

matttye

"Disrepute" - don't see how. Happened in a private corridor and was witnessed only by a colleague. Did the colleague see him send it to his friend? If not, they have no evidence he did anything other than take a photo.

"Breaking DPA" - again, don't see how, if they have not witnessed him send it to his friend.

"Inappropriate behaviour" - well yeah. Apologise and explain what happened.

If they already know he sent it on Snapchat, he should maybe just explain that he sent the picture to a friend as a joke and actually show them the photo and explain that he was referring to the trolley as a jail rather than his employer.

Mountain, molehill springs to mind.

tommytynan123

montyrebel wrote: »

taking pictures of random babies is very creepy to me, I would be worried about your son becoming even worse in future

He doesn't take pictures of random babies. He has his own baby thanks. His thought process was based on the fact that he couldn't get past the unattended trolley containing a baby to reach the locker room.

So - we spent hours discussing it and decided, with guidance from here, that he would hold his hands up and say it was ''inappropriate and childish'' and sorry! But he also turned up with a dossier of evidence that almost floored the person in the chair. ''She was not expecting that!!''
1. He handed her a copy of the photo that did not show any part of a baby just a close up of his finger and a small section of the trolley. Company logo was not visible. The photo had only been seen by him and a third party via snapchat. (In fact in hindsight - had he said ''there is no photo'' then I'm not sure what they would have done)
2. He watched the CCTV with her which showed that 2 of the 3 statements were complete lies. All it shows is him holding his phone close to the trolley. The third was by someone not at the scene but hearsay.
3. He produced 'copies of texts and messages' that showed collusion between the 2 staff who had written false statements.

There was enough there (or not there) to, in my view, lift the suspension but the chair wants to interview the 2 concerned which may take a week due to leave/holiday. The chair did say that even though the statements appear false the matter is not fully closed and they remain as evidence. He remains on suspension for another week!

So DPA and disrepute are out of the window. He had a copy of the company DPA policy and this case does not fit anywhere. Disrepute? - snapchat between 2 people - one of which is a non-employee and photo had no logo.

"Inappropriate behaviour" - yeah OK! He's admitted it was stupid and childish.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with the 2 false statement employees.
Thanks all for your help. I'll come back in a week with the final result but he is now more relaxed and my ''clipped ear'' for being stupid is probably still hurting.

As an aside question. If an employer dismisses an employee following an incident and the employee immediately appeals do the company have to continue paying that person during the appeal.??