Appeal Against Dismissal

marliepanda

JReacher1 wrote: »

The first reply you posted to one of my posts was dismissive and unpleasant....

Your assertion is incorrect and to believe it is “highly unlikely” for their to be two cases the same is laughable.

The same in every facet? Offence, nature of work history, response?

Yes I do think its highly unlikely.

If two work colleagues commit the same offence, have both been there 1 year with squeaky clean records. 1 immediately apologises for the error, and 2 says 'Yes I did it, and I'm not bothered about it.' you think its unfair for person 1 to be kept on and person 2 to be sacked...

JReacher1

marliepanda wrote: »

The same in every facet? Offence, nature of work history, response?

Yes I do think its highly unlikely.

If two work colleagues commit the same offence, have both been there 1 year with squeaky clean records. 1 immediately apologises for the error, and 2 says 'Yes I did it, and I'm not bothered about it.' you think its unfair for person 1 to be kept on and person 2 to be sacked...

I believe from other posts I have read on this forum you are quite a junior employee of wherever you work so probably have never been in this situation yourself where you have to make this decision.

When two employees both commit an offence which is deemed as gross misconduct saying sorry does not really mean much in their defence and as a result both would be sacked.

Your example is slightly weak as because they have both been their less than two years it does mean they cannot really go to an employment tribunal anyway. I suppose there is a chance that depending on the error they may decide to not apply the same punishment to both people as there is little chance of this going to tribunal.

marliepanda

JReacher1 wrote: »

I believe from other posts I have read on this forum you are quite a junior employee of wherever you work so probably have never been in this situation yourself where you have to make this decision.

Which posts have those been then I am younger, yes, junior, well that depends!

Anyway, I am not going to get into a measuring contest with yourself over jobs, because its unneccessary and I am not going to rise to your 'well you are ONLY a junior employee so what do you know' My job title and salary are irrelevant. I don't care if you're a CEO or an admin apprentice.

sangie595

Whilst consistency may be a factor in determining unfairness at a tribunal, it is significantly less important than other factors, and if that is the only our best point of the claim, then it is a very weak claim.

In this case, based on the posted information, it is abundantly apparent that, in addition to the fact that being the exact same situation is exceptionally unlikely, that simply cannot be the case here - the disciplinaries were conducted by different managers, so that means they were simply not the same. If all other things were equal in all aspects (very unlikely), it is still available to have differ outcomes provided both outcomes are within the range of outcomes that a reasonable employer would consider. Is dismissal within the range? Yes, undoubtedly. So it is "fair", legally, for one manager to consider dismissal and dismiss, and for another to consider dismissal and not dismiss. We are dealing with human beings and not computers here, and the same is true of tribunals to some extent. Judges are human. Sometimes their decisions aren't entirely based on the law - they are law+. In other words, it's possible for them to overlay they law with personal feelings. They can't replace the law - but interpretation is critical in much of law.

That said, basing advice on "it happened once to someone I vaguely might have known in another department" is dangerous. Unless one is privy to the exact details of the case in both instances, and privy to the exact findings of a tribunal, then actually, you are only guessing at things. Guessing badly, more than likely.

The weakness in the "it was the same situation, but different outcomes" argument is actually very simple. It goes past arguments of "how can two different things be exactly the same without any question". It goes to "prove it". In this case in point, the OPs friend (and let's not even consider that what we have here is third hand information from someone not involved in either disciplinary" - a friend is supposed to believe all the c..p you tell them!) is clearly basing their "claim" on information from their (soon to be former) friend who didn't get dismissed for doing the same thing. A friend who will, in all likelihood, be appearing as a witness on behalf of the employer and denying everything the OPs friend has said! And the tribunal must believe that unless there is evidence to the contrary. Why? Because they cannot and must not enquire into the other persons disciplinary or circumstances. That is not in question in the Tribunal.

So, as in any other court case, this will come down to the actual evidence presented. Claims, allegations and beliefs will not be sufficient.

Les79

Wayne_O_Mac wrote: »

I despise people who manipulate their place in the queue!
Then I manipulated their place in the queue "for a laugh".

You complete hypocrite.

Well, I thought it was quite fair-minded on my part to be honest..

Call avoider (person A) manipulates their position in the queue so that colleague (person gets the last call of the day (and thus has to stay later whilst A swans out of the building on the dot).

I therefore manipulate the lines so that, despite the efforts of A, the next call (which is rightfully A's call) gets routed to them irrespective of what they do.

If that's hypocritical then fair enough! But come back to me when you've been in B's position.... when you've watched a piker swan out on the dot and you're 15 minutes late getting out of the building. Unpaid overtime, I might add....

It was for a laugh to be fair, because it was either me amusing myself or me flagging it up to management and getting the agent sacked. I like to think that the ones I had "a laugh" over got off pretty lightly in the grand scheme of things. And here's the rub, it bamboozled agents and actually convinced one or two to NOT CALL AVOID! So call me a hypocrite, but I'm pretty sure I very subtly saved the odd person from a rightful sacking.

FBaby

All the company would need to do is claim that after the first one got a written warning, they reminded everyone that call dodging will not be tolerated and succeptible to dismissal. That's that, situation diff!rent one was warned verbally the other wasn't.

TELLIT01

Wayne_O_Mac wrote: »

I despise people who manipulate their place in the queue!
Then I manipulated their place in the queue "for a laugh".

You complete hypocrite.

If they had said they manipulated their place in the queue to ensure they did their share of late calls I would be in total agreement with their action. Part of their job is to ensure fair distribution of the work. There is no hypocracy in doing that. The person who had been effectively dumping on colleagues would hopefully quickly get the message that supervisors / managers were wise to what they were doing and stop.

Fergie76

Just to bring this thread full circle.

The appeal was held last Monday and due to the amount of appeal points made, the Manager hearing the appeal said it would take a week or so to full investigate the appeal and that they would receive their reply via letter.

On Friday, my friend received a call asking them to go in this morning as they would like to clarify a few points and they would then received an answer on the day.

They went in this morning and they have been reinstated as the Manager agreed with all their appeal points except one.

The punishment has been downgraded to a final written warning.

Takeaway_Addict

Fergie76 wrote: »

Just to bring this thread full circle.

The appeal was held last Monday and due to the amount of appeal points made, the Manager hearing the appeal said it would take a week or so to full investigate the appeal and that they would receive their reply via letter.

On Friday, my friend received a call asking them to go in this morning as they would like to clarify a few points and they would then received an answer on the day.

They went in this morning and they have been reinstated as the Manager agreed with all their appeal points except one.

The punishment has been downgraded to a final written warning.

Good result....