Re-location after viewing pornography?

steampowered

Op, it sounds like you are marking yourself out as a "problem employee".

That's not a good thing. It will damage your prospects of getting promoted, and make it less likely that you will be able to have a positive relationship with managers and colleagues in future.

When you admit you've done something wrong, it's usually best to fess up, keep your head down and do your job. The best way to get out of a hole is to STOP DIGGING ! 

You've already taken up an enormous amount of management and HR time with your disciplinary and your grievances/complaints - time that could be better spent running the business! 

It sounds like you might be trying to needlessly escalate the situation in order to prove a point? I don't understand what you think you would actually be achieving by getting your colleague fired or moved to a different office - is it just a matter of getting some sort of meaningless petty revenge against this person for making a complaint about you?  Unless the presence of this person is  stopping you from doing your job, it might be time to let this one go.

steampowered

IAMIAM said:

Interesting views here, my sister is an employment judge and in situations like this, where you feel the employer is in the wrong, the only way to instigate anything or something is to take it out of the employers hands. All too often you hear the replies you are getting already just to your simple question, but ultimately once employment law takes over, the onus is on the employer to justify why they have made their decisions and why they have chosen not to follow their own policy. They usually don't have a leg to stand on and then you'll find you were right to pursue something. Far too often HR ends up being pulled apart because they decide having CIPD Level 7 means they suddenly think they are Judge Rinder (not my words).

This is true when an employer has dismissed an employee who has more than 2 years' service.

That's because, in unfair dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that they had a fair reason for dismissal, and followed a fair procedure in arriving at their decision.

That  doesn't apply in other scenarios. There is no general obligation on the employer to justify themselves to the Op. In order to bring an ET case you need to at least formulate what the legal basis of your claim is, and I'm not sure what that would be in this case !!!

KatrinaWaves

The company is not going to relocate Person A because of a complaint made against them by Person B who had a bullying complaint upheld  where B bullied A! (Getting off on a legal technicality means the company did the processing wrong most likely, not that the bullying didn’t occur)

jonnygee2

Masomnia said:

cleverusername said:

jonnygee2 said:

They stand behind me and continue to watch before approaching the desk where I am sat and start showing my colleague (C) who is sat next to me.  At this point the phone is placed in my line of sight as they start showing colleague C and I say 'that is sick and I don't want to see it', they continue to show Colleague C for another minute before going elsewhere. 

From this description, it does actually look like it fits the definitions of sexual harassment. It clearly creates an intimidating and offensive environment, especially if it continues to be shown after you have asked for it not to be. Did the company say why they didn't find it to be sexual harassment?

Thanks again for your input. Because there was no intention to offend and it was a misjudgement on the part of A and B who did not intent for me to see the footage.

Schoolboy error in discrimination cases. It's not a straightforward one and I think you're right to get proper advice.

Masomnia said:

cleverusername said:

jonnygee2 said:

They stand behind me and continue to watch before approaching the desk where I am sat and start showing my colleague (C) who is sat next to me.  At this point the phone is placed in my line of sight as they start showing colleague C and I say 'that is sick and I don't want to see it', they continue to show Colleague C for another minute before going elsewhere. 

From this description, it does actually look like it fits the definitions of sexual harassment. It clearly creates an intimidating and offensive environment, especially if it continues to be shown after you have asked for it not to be. Did the company say why they didn't find it to be sexual harassment?

Thanks again for your input. Because there was no intention to offend and it was a misjudgement on the part of A and B who did not intent for me to see the footage.

Schoolboy error in discrimination cases. It's not a straightforward one and I think you're right to get proper advice.

Agreed, there doesn't need to be intention for it to be harassment, and this is a case where proper advice is definitely warranted.

jonnygee2

That's because, in unfair dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that they had a fair reason for dismissal, and followed a fair procedure in arriving at their decision.

Two years service doesn't apply to incidences of sexual harassment.

IAMIAM

steampowered said:

IAMIAM said:

Interesting views here, my sister is an employment judge and in situations like this, where you feel the employer is in the wrong, the only way to instigate anything or something is to take it out of the employers hands. All too often you hear the replies you are getting already just to your simple question, but ultimately once employment law takes over, the onus is on the employer to justify why they have made their decisions and why they have chosen not to follow their own policy. They usually don't have a leg to stand on and then you'll find you were right to pursue something. Far too often HR ends up being pulled apart because they decide having CIPD Level 7 means they suddenly think they are Judge Rinder (not my words).

This is true when an employer has dismissed an employee who has more than 2 years' service.

That's because, in unfair dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that they had a fair reason for dismissal, and followed a fair procedure in arriving at their decision.

That  doesn't apply in other scenarios. There is no general obligation on the employer to justify themselves to the Op. In order to bring an ET case you need to at least formulate what the legal basis of your claim is, and I'm not sure what that would be in this case !!!

I disagree. From HR not being impartial, to using the wrong person to investigate the problem, to not following their own policy, to the person hearing the issue being related to the person who is being attacked, to time scales being incorrect, to not giving reasonable time for an appeal to be hear, to not hearing an appeal, to not making sure representation was made available, to the person investigating being the person who promoted the person being attacked. The list is literally endless which is why they end up pulled apart. Google HR and Employment Tribunal Cases. Should help. 

IAMIAM

steampowered said:

Op, it sounds like you are marking yourself out as a "problem employee".

That's not a good thing. It will damage your prospects of getting promoted, and make it less likely that you will be able to have a positive relationship with managers and colleagues in future.

When you admit you've done something wrong, it's usually best to fess up, keep your head down and do your job. The best way to get out of a hole is to STOP DIGGING ! 

You've already taken up an enormous amount of management and HR time with your disciplinary and your grievances/complaints - time that could be better spent running the business! 

It sounds like you might be trying to needlessly escalate the situation in order to prove a point? I don't understand what you think you would actually be achieving by getting your colleague fired or moved to a different office - is it just a matter of getting some sort of meaningless petty revenge against this person for making a complaint about you?  Unless the presence of this person is  stopping you from doing your job, it might be time to let this one go.

Replies like this is why scandals appear all over the news 10 years later because of fear

IAMIAM

Comms69 said:

IAMIAM said:

Interesting views here, my sister is an employment judge and in situations like this, where you feel the employer is in the wrong, the only way to instigate anything or something is to take it out of the employers hands. All too often you hear the replies you are getting already just to your simple question, but ultimately once employment law takes over, the onus is on the employer to justify why they have made their decisions and why they have chosen not to follow their own policy. They usually don't have a leg to stand on and then you'll find you were right to pursue something. Far too often HR ends up being pulled apart because they decide having CIPD Level 7 means they suddenly think they are Judge Rinder (not my words).

Perhaps your sister can give you some legal advice here then and you can share it with everyone - as we've all missed the obvious

Who's 'we've' or is that just you meaning you?

IAMIAM

HR is there to protect the business not the employee. ALWAYS. 

steampowered

IAMIAM said:

I disagree. From HR not being impartial, to using the wrong person to investigate the problem, to not following their own policy, to the person hearing the issue being related to the person who is being attacked, to time scales being incorrect, to not giving reasonable time for an appeal to be hear, to not hearing an appeal, to not making sure representation was made available, to the person investigating being the person who promoted the person being attacked. The list is literally endless which is why they end up pulled apart. Google HR and Employment Tribunal Cases. Should help. 

What would be the legal basis for the Op to start Employment Tribunal proceedings in this case? If you were going to file a claim, what would you put on the ET1?

You can't lodge an ET1 if you don't know what your claim is! The ET will only consider the claim in front of them, they aren't going to do a general audit of whether HR followed company procedures. 

If you start a meaningless Employment Tribunal case like this without being able to articulate the claim you are bringing, it's very likely that the claim will simply be struck out and that the employee will be ordered to pay the employer's legal costs. I don't need to google Employment Tribunal cases, thanks - I know what I'm talking about.