Best Strategy for Disciplinary Hearing - Inappropriate Use of Social Media

fiisch

Thanks all.

To clarify, he does not work in the public sector.

He agreed with a colleague criticising how the company was treating another employee after they had committed a particularly horrible crime. I haven't seen the comments, but allegedly he criticised the company and how they handled the situation.

He knows it was daft - I have tried warning him before about saying ANYTHING to do with work. Not saying he was naive - I think more it was that he thought he wouldn't get caught, or didn't consider potential consequences if he did.

Here's hoping...

ohreally

fiisch wrote: »

My dad's track record is not great

Does this mean he has previous disciplinary sanctions (i'm thinking if they try to regurgitate them in addition to the current situation given the redundancy round).

patman99

I would suggest that he reviews his contract of employment with regards to their disciplinary procedures. They may not be in any legal position to use his previous warnings as they would be time-barred.

ohreally

patman99 wrote: »

They may not be in any legal position to use his previous warnings as they would be time-barred.

An expired warning (or as in this case, 17 previous warnings) can be taken into account as part of the overall circumstances when considering whether a dismissal is unfair. Stratford v Auto Trail VR Ltd [2016] UKEAT 0116

..........

BorisThomson

patman99 wrote: »

I would suggest that he reviews his contract of employment with regards to their disciplinary procedures. They may not be in any legal position to use his previous warnings as they would be time-barred.

Disciplinary procedures are not normally contractual. It's quite possible the procedure has (lawfully) changed over time given their length of service.

The offence is sufficient for a finding of gross dismissal irrespective of past conduct.

lincroft1710

If your father is on LinkedIn then I would suggest he uses this to advertise the fact he is (or will be) available for work.

I don't think it matters what he does, he's out of the door, saving his employer the problem of who to to select for possible redundancy and saving them money in redundancy payments.

However, I would love to be proved wrong in this matter.

sangie595

Another vote for "I'm not hopeful, but grovel anyway". Don't make a single attempt to explain or excuse. Let's get this straight - someone was alleged to have committed a crime and was under investigation. I don't care whether it was heinous or not. The employer did absolutely the right thing - they had no grounds to dismiss because an allegation is not a conviction. So an idiot decided to tell them (the employer) what they thought of that. And got (rightly) dismissed. So your father thought it'd be a great idea to do it as well!!?? Not even being drunk would excuse that degree of lunacy.

I would, in mitigation, only suggest that he was horrified by the allegations against a colleague, and allowed his personal feelings about this sort of crime, which he now recognises was an overreaction to the situation, that it overruled his good sense. He recognises the very difficult position his employers were on, and in hindsight recognises their actions were measured and proportionate. He is so sorry, he should have thought about things before posting, but he didn't .... And then grovel as much as he can.


Oh, and assuming he isn't the President of the USA, whether it works or not, confiscate his phones, lap tops and computers. Only one person in the world is allowed to be this stupid at a time, and the position is already taken!

sangie595

ohreally wrote: »

..........

They won't need the previous warnings. His actions on this matter alone would substantiate gross misconduct should the employer decide that is the outcome.

leslieknope

could he not ask if voluntary redundancy is still on offer?

Savvy_Sue

leslieknope wrote: »

could he not ask if voluntary redundancy is still on offer?

I'm sure he could, but why would they agree? Heck of a lot cheaper to go down the disciplinary route, and no realistic chance the OP's dad could hope to overturn that an employment tribunal.