Re-location after viewing pornography?

Comms69

IAMIAM said:

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?

Everyone disagreeing with you 

thebrexitunicorn

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.

So do I and relating to the pornography it would likely be a sex discrimination (harassment) claim.   I don’t see any reason why such a claim would be struck out or expenses awarded.  

OP I’m not suggesting you raise a claim, that’s entirely a decision for you. I think seeking advice from your union is a good next step.  

an9i77

mr_stripey said:

SadieO said:

Undervalued 
"I'd be questioning HR" - really? On what grounds? HR are there to do the company's bidding not to act as some kind of neutral arbitrator.

A comment I once heard that has always stayed with me... "HR aren't there to protect you, they are there to protect the company from you"

This is very true. HR like to portray themselves as "looking after" employees, but the reality is they aren't there to go in to bat for you, but to protect the company's interests!

How anyone can not understand this is beyond me. 

IAMIAM

steampowered said:

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.

Right, so you will know most ET1 forms are majority of times accepted, regardless, you will also know EC takes places before ET1. You will also know that ET1 are processed and usually never thrown out until bundle stage. You will also know that over 90% of cases are settled before tribunals, the fee is paid to generate money knowing full well that it will be either settled before court or withdrawn when HR realise they have fluffed up during EC stage.

IAMIAM

Comms69 said:

IAMIAM said:

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?

Everyone disagreeing with you 

Love it, the royal 'we' has arrived 

KatrinaWaves

I repeat.

Person B was found to have bullied person A

Person B then accused Person A of bullying, SH and viewing !!!!!!, of which they decided only the !!!!!! was upheld.

Person B, who was found to have bullied Person A now wants Person A, the victim of their bullying, to be relocated.

I am not sure how anyone here thinks that it going to fly. No work would risk relocating a bullied employee on the behest of their bully!!

Comms69

IAMIAM said:

Comms69 said:

IAMIAM said:

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?

Everyone disagreeing with you 

Love it, the royal 'we' has arrived 

No, not the royal we, the literal we. 

Your argument is basically make a claim because employers settle often to save costs. Perhaps caveat that with - however if you risk it and lose, you can be held liable for costs.

steampowered

IAMIAM said:

Right, so you will know most ET1 forms are majority of times accepted, regardless, you will also know EC takes places before ET1. You will also know that ET1 are processed and usually never thrown out until bundle stage. You will also know that over 90% of cases are settled before tribunals, the fee is paid to generate money knowing full well that it will be either settled before court or withdrawn when HR realise they have fluffed up during EC stage.

It isn't very hard to get a weak case struck out at an early stage. Long before you get to preparing trial bundles! 

The strategy you seem to be advocating - of encouraging the Op to bring an Employment Tribunal case without a clear legal basis for doing so, with a poorly articulated ET1, simply in order to cause grief for HR, and possibly encourage the employer to offer up some money to save them the hassle of dealing with it - is high risk. That could backfire quite spectacularly.

There's nothing in this thread that I can see which suggests that HR failed to follow the proper procedures. To the contrary, it seems that due process was followed - given that the Op was able to challenge a disciplinary for bullying and get that overturned on a technicality.

While legal costs are only awarded against a small minority of claimants, only a small minority of claimants bring vexatious claims. The Tribunals are quite willing to award legal costs against claimants who bring hopeless claims.

MinuteNoodles

thebrexitunicorn said:

And in this instance, which specific employment law would you suggest the OP takes them up on? 

If colleagues were watching pornography in the workplace,  sexual harassment.  Assuming the situation is as presented,  the OP may want to consider appealing the outcome of the grievance on this.  

Good luck with that. It'd be a case if the employee had been trying to goad the OP into watching or sending emails etc with links to it but if the OP is deciding to look at the employee's screen off their own bat then that claim is going nowhere.

jonnygee2

Good luck with that. It'd be a case if the employee had been trying to goad the OP into watching or sending emails etc with links to it but if the OP is deciding to look at the employee's screen off their own bat then that claim is going nowhere.

The description of the incidence does fit the definition of harassment. Also, the company's verdict was that it wasn't sexual harassment because it wasn't intentional - they clearly haven't understood the legal definitions of sexual harassment, and if they don't revoke that decision in an appeal it would be picked up on by an ET.

The OP is now seeking proper advice through a union, which I think is a more suitable place given the nature of this. Maybe there isn't a claim, but going on what they have said and how they have described that incident, and the fact that the company refuse to recognise it as an incident of sexual harassment mean I really don't think it's a simple 'there's no viable claim here' scenario.