Prep for Disciplinary hearing

Masomnia

tommytynan123 wrote: »

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.

Good for him, sounds like it went as well as it could under the circumstances.

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.??

No, you remain dismissed pending the outcome.

Undervalued

tommytynan123 wrote: »

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.??

No.

Should he be reinstated by the appeal then he should be paid from the date of dismissal until he restarts. Realistically, very few internal appeals are upheld unless there are exceptional circumstances.

One point worth noting is that the three months time limit for starting an unfair dismissal claim is very strict. Some companies drag their heels over appeals in the hope that the employee will be out of time. You can, if necessary, file a ET claim before an appeal is heard.

Unless I have missed it, you have still not said how long he has been employed. If it is less than two years he is still relying on their goodwill or them having enough integrity to handle the matter properly and fairly.

tommytynan123

Undervalued wrote: »

No.

Unless I have missed it, you have still not said how long he has been employed. If it is less than two years he is still relying on their goodwill or them having enough integrity to handle the matter properly and fairly.

5 years approx. He started as a 16 hour a week assistant and is now Asst Manager (50+ hours a week) I think I actually clipped his ear twice. Once for being stupid and once for being stupid as Asst Manager. He'll learn.

agrinnall

tommytynan123 wrote: »

5 years approx. He started as a 16 hour a week assistant and is now Asst Manager (50+ hours a week) I think I actually clipped his ear twice. Once for being stupid and once for being stupid as Asst Manager. He'll learn.

I think that having ascended to Asst Manager makes his offence worse, you might expect that someone in a position of authority would have more sense than he did when he was at the bottom of the ladder. I suspect his card may be marked now so he needs to make sure he is squeaky clean going forward.

JReacher1

Personally if it was my decision I would have dismissed him. A member of the management team implying the company that he works for is a prison is unacceptable behaviour.

Plus approaching an unattended baby alone with a camera is unusual behaviour.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

JReacher1 wrote: »

Personally if it was my decision I would have dismissed him. A member of the management team implying the company that he works for is a prison is unacceptable behaviour.

In a private text to somebody unconnected with the company?

I still don't know how anyone is supposed to know he used the word prison, let alone be able to prove it.

polgara

For all we know they may have rules about no phone usage whilst on duty - so CCTV would show that this did occur never mind what was done/said etc

NCC-1701

polgara wrote: »

For all we know they may have rules about no phone usage whilst on duty - so CCTV would show that this did occur never mind what was done/said etc

He wasn't on duty.

[Deleted User]

In a rush to get to a cricket match but had time to faff about with Snap Chat. Heh

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

polgara wrote: »

For all we know they may have rules about no phone usage whilst on duty - so CCTV would show that this did occur never mind what was done/said etc

It's a fair assumption that they don't; because not mentioning something of this importance would render the whole thread completely pointless. Adding that now would be akin to saying "Oh, and on the way out he punched the area manager for no reason."