Is it dismissal offence?

Undervalued

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

atothec said:

JamoLew said:

Agree with @Manxman_in_exile

  I guess as with most things nowadays that people take “offence” with,the point is whether:

the word on its own  is offensive (imo - not)

when used in in certain contexts (imo -possible)

when used in this context (imo - absolutely not)

I do wonder if there is more to this then is being let on (as I already alluded in my previous post)

I will update soon as I receive the written report as they said they will send it to us all involved and you all will laugh at it 

Why make so much noise about a trivial matter. All that's required is an apology and move on. The matter is then closed.  

Why apologise if the OP has done nothing wrong? 

I'd stand my ground and argue my case on the basis that 'refugee' is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe a group of displaced worked 'forced' to move from a different part of the company because of conditions in that part of the company (ie no work for them).

People can be political refugees, economic refugees, natural disaster refugees, conflict refugees.  The key point is that they are displaced from their normal places of home or work because of circumstances beyond their control and through no fault of heir own.

If someone is offended by the word 'refugee' then they should take it up with the English scholars who compile the dictionary definitions.  They certainly should not be protesting against someone using the word in a perfectly reasonable context.

Losing a job is not nice, but if this is really how this company is going to behave then I wouldn't want to work for them anyway.

I'd request a one-on-one meeting with the most senior HR person in the company and explain the above position in very robust terms, making it clear that if I am sanctioned in any way for using a perfectly reasonable word in a perfectly reasonable context then I will be taking the strongest possible action against the company, which will very likely involve a great deal of publicity - for the company and for the HR people personally.

I'd then suggest that HR have a meeting with the offended persons to explain the position and give them a brief lesson on English language, the dictionary definition of 'refugee' and its reasonable use in this situation.  They should also explain that no offence was intended and that the company was not going to take any further action.  I'd also tell HR that if they insist on pursuing this issue then I'd want to speak with the MD before they do so.

Ultimately, it will be up to company to decide whether to take this farce further and to sanction the OP.  I'd just be making it absolutely clear that I wasn't going to stand by passively and take it.  I would be defending myself as vigorously as possible - within the company or without.  Including legal action where appropriate.

Principles can be very expensive things and it is very easy to have them on behalf of other people!

As I said earlier, I think it is unlikely that the OP would be dismissed unless there is more to this that we are not being told. 

If he were to be dismissed, again assuming we know the whole story, he would most likely eventually win an unfair dismissal claim. He would very likely get some compensation but it is generally far less than many people seem to think. That will take a year or more if the employer fights. None of that is certain.

Meanwhile he would need to find and keep another job, where he would have little security and no redundancy rights for two years.

Sometimes, if a simple apology will make it all go away, it is better to swallow your pride and be pragmatic.

Mickey666

I agree that's an alternative strategy, though I'm sure the OP has already considered that option.

What we really need to know is how the company is going to respond.  If they ask the OP to apologise and the matter will be closed then your pragmatic option is certainly an option.  But if they do dismiss the OP then apologising is pointless and there would be nothing to lose with my option.  Indeed there would be everything to gain.

atothec

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

atothec said:

JamoLew said:

Agree with @Manxman_in_exile

  I guess as with most things nowadays that people take “offence” with,the point is whether:

the word on its own  is offensive (imo - not)

when used in in certain contexts (imo -possible)

when used in this context (imo - absolutely not)

I do wonder if there is more to this then is being let on (as I already alluded in my previous post)

I will update soon as I receive the written report as they said they will send it to us all involved and you all will laugh at it 

Why make so much noise about a trivial matter. All that's required is an apology and move on. The matter is then closed.  

Why apologise if the OP has done nothing wrong? 

I'd stand my ground and argue my case on the basis that 'refugee' is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe a group of displaced worked 'forced' to move from a different part of the company because of conditions in that part of the company (ie no work for them).

People can be political refugees, economic refugees, natural disaster refugees, conflict refugees.  The key point is that they are displaced from their normal places of home or work because of circumstances beyond their control and through no fault of heir own.

If someone is offended by the word 'refugee' then they should take it up with the English scholars who compile the dictionary definitions.  They certainly should not be protesting against someone using the word in a perfectly reasonable context.

Losing a job is not nice, but if this is really how this company is going to behave then I wouldn't want to work for them anyway.

I'd request a one-on-one meeting with the most senior HR person in the company and explain the above position in very robust terms, making it clear that if I am sanctioned in any way for using a perfectly reasonable word in a perfectly reasonable context then I will be taking the strongest possible action against the company, which will very likely involve a great deal of publicity - for the company and for the HR people personally.

I'd then suggest that HR have a meeting with the offended persons to explain the position and give them a brief lesson on English language, the dictionary definition of 'refugee' and its reasonable use in this situation.  They should also explain that no offence was intended and that the company was not going to take any further action.  I'd also tell HR that if they insist on pursuing this issue then I'd want to speak with the MD before they do so.

Ultimately, it will be up to company to decide whether to take this farce further and to sanction the OP.  I'd just be making it absolutely clear that I wasn't going to stand by passively and take it.  I would be defending myself as vigorously as possible - within the company or without.  Including legal action where appropriate.

I personally thank Mickey666 I think he has got some very strong points as I never wanted to pursue in that way I just was prepared to apologise and get on with it.
You have some very good points and I'm going to address them in the next meeting as they still have to come up with the findings, 
The way they have questioned me (it was the first one) they made it clear that I was in the wrong and they did not want that sort of language in they workplace, and yet I made it clear is it the word REFUGEES they referring to or is there something else that I don't know and they made it clear it was the use of the word REFUGEES,

Again if they come and they just leave it with a verbal warning probably I will settle for that if it is a written warning I'm going to make the points you just pointed 

Undervalued

atothec said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

atothec said:

JamoLew said:

Agree with @Manxman_in_exile

  I guess as with most things nowadays that people take “offence” with,the point is whether:

the word on its own  is offensive (imo - not)

when used in in certain contexts (imo -possible)

when used in this context (imo - absolutely not)

I do wonder if there is more to this then is being let on (as I already alluded in my previous post)

I will update soon as I receive the written report as they said they will send it to us all involved and you all will laugh at it 

Why make so much noise about a trivial matter. All that's required is an apology and move on. The matter is then closed.  

Why apologise if the OP has done nothing wrong? 

I'd stand my ground and argue my case on the basis that 'refugee' is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe a group of displaced worked 'forced' to move from a different part of the company because of conditions in that part of the company (ie no work for them).

People can be political refugees, economic refugees, natural disaster refugees, conflict refugees.  The key point is that they are displaced from their normal places of home or work because of circumstances beyond their control and through no fault of heir own.

If someone is offended by the word 'refugee' then they should take it up with the English scholars who compile the dictionary definitions.  They certainly should not be protesting against someone using the word in a perfectly reasonable context.

Losing a job is not nice, but if this is really how this company is going to behave then I wouldn't want to work for them anyway.

I'd request a one-on-one meeting with the most senior HR person in the company and explain the above position in very robust terms, making it clear that if I am sanctioned in any way for using a perfectly reasonable word in a perfectly reasonable context then I will be taking the strongest possible action against the company, which will very likely involve a great deal of publicity - for the company and for the HR people personally.

I'd then suggest that HR have a meeting with the offended persons to explain the position and give them a brief lesson on English language, the dictionary definition of 'refugee' and its reasonable use in this situation.  They should also explain that no offence was intended and that the company was not going to take any further action.  I'd also tell HR that if they insist on pursuing this issue then I'd want to speak with the MD before they do so.

Ultimately, it will be up to company to decide whether to take this farce further and to sanction the OP.  I'd just be making it absolutely clear that I wasn't going to stand by passively and take it.  I would be defending myself as vigorously as possible - within the company or without.  Including legal action where appropriate.

I personally thank Mickey666 I think he has got some very strong points as I never wanted to pursue in that way I just was prepared to apologise and get on with it.
You have some very good points and I'm going to address them in the next meeting as they still have to come up with the findings, 
The way they have questioned me (it was the first one) they made it clear that I was in the wrong and they did not want that sort of language in they workplace, and yet I made it clear is it the word REFUGEES they referring to or is there something else that I don't know and they made it clear it was the use of the word REFUGEES,

Again if they come and they just leave it with a verbal warning probably I will settle for that if it is a written warning I'm going to make the points you just pointed 

You cannot go to a tribunal over any type of warning (verbal, written or final) but only in the event of dismissal.

gettingtheresometime

Many moons I made an equally harmless remark, admittedly to the boss who I thought I was on very good terms with,

I was later brought up a trumped up gross misconduct charge and this comment was used against me in the disciplinary - it was obvious that the boss had just been waiting for the right moment to use it against me.

I learnt then that my sense of humour isn't everybody else's and unless we all knew each other very well, I'd never make a similar remark to anyone else again.

OP, it might be just my opinion but even if you do get a written warning, I'd consider whether it is worth rocking the boat over.

atothec

JamoLew said:

Dare I ask if the OP is in a union ?  (Haven’t noticed any mention and cba re-reading)

No union as its normally good company and not many are in a union, plus I'm hoping it doesn't go there as still waiting for HR to get back to me 

Mickey666

Undervalued said:

atothec said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

atothec said:

JamoLew said:

Agree with @Manxman_in_exile

  I guess as with most things nowadays that people take “offence” with,the point is whether:

the word on its own  is offensive (imo - not)

when used in in certain contexts (imo -possible)

when used in this context (imo - absolutely not)

I do wonder if there is more to this then is being let on (as I already alluded in my previous post)

I will update soon as I receive the written report as they said they will send it to us all involved and you all will laugh at it 

Why make so much noise about a trivial matter. All that's required is an apology and move on. The matter is then closed.  

Why apologise if the OP has done nothing wrong? 

I'd stand my ground and argue my case on the basis that 'refugee' is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe a group of displaced worked 'forced' to move from a different part of the company because of conditions in that part of the company (ie no work for them).

People can be political refugees, economic refugees, natural disaster refugees, conflict refugees.  The key point is that they are displaced from their normal places of home or work because of circumstances beyond their control and through no fault of heir own.

If someone is offended by the word 'refugee' then they should take it up with the English scholars who compile the dictionary definitions.  They certainly should not be protesting against someone using the word in a perfectly reasonable context.

Losing a job is not nice, but if this is really how this company is going to behave then I wouldn't want to work for them anyway.

I'd request a one-on-one meeting with the most senior HR person in the company and explain the above position in very robust terms, making it clear that if I am sanctioned in any way for using a perfectly reasonable word in a perfectly reasonable context then I will be taking the strongest possible action against the company, which will very likely involve a great deal of publicity - for the company and for the HR people personally.

I'd then suggest that HR have a meeting with the offended persons to explain the position and give them a brief lesson on English language, the dictionary definition of 'refugee' and its reasonable use in this situation.  They should also explain that no offence was intended and that the company was not going to take any further action.  I'd also tell HR that if they insist on pursuing this issue then I'd want to speak with the MD before they do so.

Ultimately, it will be up to company to decide whether to take this farce further and to sanction the OP.  I'd just be making it absolutely clear that I wasn't going to stand by passively and take it.  I would be defending myself as vigorously as possible - within the company or without.  Including legal action where appropriate.

I personally thank Mickey666 I think he has got some very strong points as I never wanted to pursue in that way I just was prepared to apologise and get on with it.
You have some very good points and I'm going to address them in the next meeting as they still have to come up with the findings, 
The way they have questioned me (it was the first one) they made it clear that I was in the wrong and they did not want that sort of language in they workplace, and yet I made it clear is it the word REFUGEES they referring to or is there something else that I don't know and they made it clear it was the use of the word REFUGEES,

Again if they come and they just leave it with a verbal warning probably I will settle for that if it is a written warning I'm going to make the points you just pointed 

You cannot go to a tribunal over any type of warning (verbal, written or final) but only in the event of dismissal.

OK, but I believe you can insist on making your own statement to be included in your personnel file in answer to any written warning, which might be useful if things ever did get to a tribunal in the future.

yksi

People can raise a grievance for anything they like, even if it's ridiculous. Your employer will have a procedure they follow according to their policy, and they're following this, by going to investigation. It's to find out what happened and get everyone's side of the story, to decide if it all needs to be addressed further.

Once HR makes their decision you'll know more. They probably also have an appeals process too, if you don't agree with the outcome. This is not the end just yet, so just see what happens next. And read your workplace's policies so that you understand how the process will continue.

atothec

yksi said:

People can raise a grievance for anything they like, even if it's ridiculous. Your employer will have a procedure they follow according to their policy, and they're following this, by going to investigation. It's to find out what happened and get everyone's side of the story, to decide if it all needs to be addressed further.

Once HR makes their decision you'll know more. They probably also have an appeals process too, if you don't agree with the outcome. This is not the end just yet, so just see what happens next. And read your workplace's policies so that you understand how the process will continue.

Thank you, and I totally agree and waiting on they response as they do have the policy for appeal against any decision, and I'm really grateful of replys on her as I haven't debated this even with my gf as not wanting to give her headache for something that I don't know what HR will come up , even though it wasn't nice when they pointed blame on me for a word that as Mickey666 (which has made some great points) is widely used in media to be so offensive, that is worrying me 

atothec

Well I have disciplinary papers today and it doesn't look good for me, but I would like if someone wants to advise a bit with this please. Its a meeting with the manager and head of HR, and it states that COMMENTS OF THIS NATURE ARE DEEMED TO BE A GROSS MISCONDUCT OFFENCE AND IF PROVEN MAY RESULT IN YOUR SUMMARY DISMISSAL