About to be fired for gross misconduct...need advise

marliepanda

ds383 wrote: »

No, I got fired from both.

So using it to prove your point that you are not a bit of a numpty is a bit daft.

Get yourself help with your alcohol. It will change things for you. You can control your anxiety without alcohol. Alcohol ONLY makes things worse, not better, I promise.

ds383

marliepanda wrote: »

So using it to prove your point that you are not a bit of a numpty is a bit daft.

Get yourself help with your alcohol. It will change things for you. You can control your anxiety without alcohol. Alcohol ONLY makes things worse, not better, I promise.

Yeah, I am an idiot. And I've had about 14 shots right now so I'm not thinking straight, but thank you

Genuineguy03

@comms69 - do enjoy poking the fire? As thats all your doing.

The case reference by ozzuk, backs up what ive been saying. You can deny it, say I'm wrong as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you can simply dismiss someone for turning up to work drunk or being drunk at work when there drinking is an know issue and known to be the result of a underlying protected characteristics. Theyd have to go down capability route. Unfortunately they issue here for the op, wasn't that he was intoxicated par se. It was the sole act of drinking on work premises, that goes against the op here, along with the fact he already been given written warnings for previous acts of turning into work intoxicated. Which if it wasn't due to his protected characteristics being known to the employer, he'd have likely been dismissed for gross misconduct for back then. So that point and the fact that in this instance he drank on premises, means we can't rely on the argument that it mixed with his medication or that he has protected characteristics, as he already on warnings, therefore likely dismissed for misconduct not gross misconduct or more probably on capability grounds. Basically in the ops case the employer has been supportive and done everything possible to accommodate the op and his mental and alcohol issues. If hadn't been drinking on work premises (and yes they will check the CCTV and speak to colleagues as a matter or investigatory procedure - it be stupid stupid to assume otherwise no matter how presumptions it may sound to you), then it could be argued he only had a couple drinks, and wasn't aware it would react with his medication. given his doctor knows he has alcohol issues and therefore shouldn't have prescribed him medication that reacts with alcohol. Therefore making it unintentional and it would have been wrong/unfair for the employer to disclipine him for, not to mention descrimintory. As it could have happened to anyone taking medication prescribed to them unaware said medication shouldn't be taken with alcohol.and an employer would have a hard time arguing the op knew he shouldn't drink whilst on medication when he's an alcoholic.but, because he drank on work premises, coupled with past turning up to work intoxicatef, then theres nothing anyone can do, unfortunately.

Genuineguy03

Sorry, mental to say "can not simply dismiss someone" not "can", at the start of my last post.

Still not able to edit posts as yet.

Savvy_Sue

ds383 wrote: »

Yeah, they will let me stay at home but I feel guilty (and hate) living there for free and I know they want me to get another job pretty much asap because they don't want me to stay at home for free as I'm in my 20's. The problem is if I get another job asap I know I'll continue drinking before/during that job too at the moment. I need time off to get well. My parents found out about my drinking problem recently because they were the ones that had to take me to the hospital. Before that I'd been hiding it from everyone.

Right. As well as YOU getting help, I'd strongly recommend that THEY get help too. If the service you're using offers support to families, encourage them to take it. I know with AA there is Al-Anon
which can be really helpful. Otherwise it's all too easy for them to carry on enabling you - which they've probably been doing for years without realising it.

ds383 wrote: »

That's a really good idea. I should give them control of my debit card, that way I'd have no way of buying alcohol at all.

Oh you would. Don't ask me how, but you'd find a way, you'd steal from them, you'd beg and borrow from friends, you'd find a way.

You're not a child. You're their child, but you're not a child. You have to take responsibility for dealing with your problems. If you want to cut your own debit card up, or less drastically put it in a bag of water in the freezer, be my guest, but do not make your parents responsible for looking after it for you.

And TALK to them! WHY will getting another job not be a good idea? WHAT are you going to do all day while you're working on your issues with alcohol?

Comms69

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

@comms69 - do enjoy poking the fire? As thats all your doing.

The case reference by ozzuk, backs up what ive been saying. You can deny it, say I'm wrong as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you can simply dismiss someone for turning up to work drunk or being drunk at work when there drinking is an know issue and known to be the result of a underlying protected characteristics. Theyd have to go down capability route. Unfortunately they issue here for the op, wasn't that he was intoxicated par se. It was the sole act of drinking on work premises, that goes against the op here, along with the fact he already been given written warnings for previous acts of turning into work intoxicated. Which if it wasn't due to his protected characteristics being known to the employer, he'd have likely been dismissed for gross misconduct for back then. So that point and the fact that in this instance he drank on premises, means we can't rely on the argument that it mixed with his medication or that he has protected characteristics, as he already on warnings, therefore likely dismissed for misconduct not gross misconduct or more probably on capability grounds. Basically in the ops case the employer has been supportive and done everything possible to accommodate the op and his mental and alcohol issues. If hadn't been drinking on work premises (and yes they will check the CCTV and speak to colleagues as a matter or investigatory procedure - it be stupid stupid to assume otherwise no matter how presumptions it may sound to you), then it could be argued he only had a couple drinks, and wasn't aware it would react with his medication. given his doctor knows he has alcohol issues and therefore shouldn't have prescribed him medication that reacts with alcohol. Therefore making it unintentional and it would have been wrong/unfair for the employer to disclipine him for, not to mention descrimintory. As it could have happened to anyone taking medication prescribed to them unaware said medication shouldn't be taken with alcohol.and an employer would have a hard time arguing the op knew he shouldn't drink whilst on medication when he's an alcoholic.but, because he drank on work premises, coupled with past turning up to work intoxicatef, then theres nothing anyone can do, unfortunately.

Sir, kindly stop embarrassing yourself.

Ozzuk

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

@comms69 - do enjoy poking the fire? As thats all your doing.

The case reference by ozzuk, backs up what ive been saying. You can deny it, say I'm wrong as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you can simply dismiss someone for turning up to work drunk or being drunk at work when there drinking is an know issue and known to be the result of a underlying protected characteristics. Theyd have to go down capability route. Unfortunately they issue here for the op, wasn't that he was intoxicated par se. It was the sole act of drinking on work premises, that goes against the op here, along with the fact he already been given written warnings for previous acts of turning into work intoxicated. Which if it wasn't due to his protected characteristics being known to the employer, he'd have likely been dismissed for gross misconduct for back then. So that point and the fact that in this instance he drank on premises, means we can't rely on the argument that it mixed with his medication or that he has protected characteristics, as he already on warnings, therefore likely dismissed for misconduct not gross misconduct or more probably on capability grounds. Basically in the ops case the employer has been supportive and done everything possible to accommodate the op and his mental and alcohol issues. If hadn't been drinking on work premises (and yes they will check the CCTV and speak to colleagues as a matter or investigatory procedure - it be stupid stupid to assume otherwise no matter how presumptions it may sound to you), then it could be argued he only had a couple drinks, and wasn't aware it would react with his medication. given his doctor knows he has alcohol issues and therefore shouldn't have prescribed him medication that reacts with alcohol. Therefore making it unintentional and it would have been wrong/unfair for the employer to disclipine him for, not to mention descrimintory. As it could have happened to anyone taking medication prescribed to them unaware said medication shouldn't be taken with alcohol.and an employer would have a hard time arguing the op knew he shouldn't drink whilst on medication when he's an alcoholic.but, because he drank on work premises, coupled with past turning up to work intoxicatef, then theres nothing anyone can do, unfortunately.

That case is just an example that sometimes it is unfair dismissal - however that doesn't mean it is a defence you can rely on as you seem to be suggesting, and there were a number of additional issues and failings.

You seem to be taking over a number of threads and making it about you, not sure why. Your posting style is really familiar as well. Freedom of speech and all that but you don't have to win the internet every time

Genuineguy03

@comms

I fail to see how one is embarrassing themselves, when the entire point they have been making is not just accurate from a legal position but confirmed as such by the findings in the tribunal case referenced to by another poster. Especially when all thats been provided to dispute my point is a reference to a drunken airline pilot where aviation law and criminal law set the precident and not employment law par se - therefore confusing a completely different legal scenario, to the one that applies to here aswell as to the majority of those employed outside of aviation. Now last time I checked, aviation law applied to aviation only not to industries or persons not connected to aviation (unless a passenger on a plane, or aviation service provider or employees of such etc etc).

its not a crime to drink in the work place or turn up intoxicated to work, unless your in control of a vehicle, even then an employer can not discipline you if its your own vehicle (not used for work purposes) and your license isn't essential to your employment (which would be a different legal scenario to that of the OPs). therefore criminal law doesn't apply here nor does aviation law. Where as for the pilot, both aviation law and criminal law do apply. So its a very poor counter arguement, in fact, its an "embarrassing" comparison for nicechap to make.

Also Ive been clear in regards to the OPs situation that there's nothing anyone can do to help him/her but hope, given the exact circumstances that weren't initially apparent or clear in their original post, hence my questions in my first post.

nicechap

ds383 wrote: »

Yeah, I am an idiot. And I've had about 14 shots right now so I'm not thinking straight, but thank you

Not the best preparation for a disciplinary meeting but you seem to know that.

I'd encourage you to follow MarliePanda's advice and take ownership of your problem and get any and all help for yourself and your family.

You do seem to recognise that you have a problem and need help which is a massive first step. Good luck.

You can ignore any nonsensical advice about whether the drinking was on company premises, observed or not. Its the company who in the first instance determine whether something is gross misconduct.

Genuineguy03

@assuk

That's true, but the key point here that i been trying to make, is that if the OP hadn't drank on work premises and hadn't had previous warnings and they went straight for dismissal on gross misconduct grounds, despite knowing of his mental health and alcohol misuse. it would be unfair dismissal. As the tribunal would find that the employer hadnt taken into account his mental health and alcohol misuse, despite being aware of both when coming to there decision. And that a fairer outcome would have been a warning and offered some support of some kind, such as referral to occupational health etc. So my point about using protected characteristic as a defence was based on "if" he had no previous warnings. But also 'if" he hadn't drank on the premises. As he could have then argued that he wasn't aware his meds would react with the alcohol he had at lunch (off site) - which would have given him a chance, but not when drank on premises as that "act"alone is gross misconduct regardless as to if it was just 1 zip or a gallon full.

But unfortunately the OP has previous warnings for alcohol related issues, so the employer has as acted fairly. Therefore we can't go down the protected characteristics route. But neither I or anyone else knew that till after the OP answered my questions and the exact circumstances became clear. And I've been clear there's nothing or little we can do. Not once have I said, "bingo we've got them, your jobs safe" . all I said is we maybe able to help, but that was before the op answered my questions, where said answers made clear there little to nothing we could do. Only then for nicechap to jump in.

As for other threads, well i not going sit there and let a troll troll me. And I believe it was only this thread and one more that nicechap trolled me on at pretty much around the same time. Same applies to people that make insulting and/or unnecessary personal remarks, or comments at my expense. Especially when its my first day here on this forum and all I want to do is help people not be trolled and certainly not make enemies, but seems others are keen to make enemies. I never ask anyone to accuse me of giving false hope (when I had done nothing of the sort), nor asked people to flame me or make disrespectful or insulting comments about my posts. But I not going to take it and not defend myself against them. Also if people want to debate points of law, then I happy to do so, and I will remain respectful to them so long as they remain respectful.