Dismissal Appeal Request

Reginald74

A custom and practice argument might be possible, particularly if any managers were demonstrably involved in falsification of records. But the place for that would have been at the original disciplinary.  The appeal is likely to just check process has been followed and that the outcome is within a reasonable range of outcomes for this offence (which it is). 

I agree: don't bother appealing. Nothing to gain, lots to lose.

Undervalued

Reginald74 said:

A custom and practice argument might be possible, particularly if any managers were demonstrably involved in falsification of records. But the place for that would have been at the original disciplinary.  The appeal is likely to just check process has been followed and that the outcome is within a reasonable range of outcomes for this offence (which it is). 

I agree: don't bother appealing. Nothing to gain, lots to lose.

I don't entirely agree with the last line.

Unless the OP is able to reach a formal agreement about any future reference I am not sure what they have to lose by appealing. 

There is a slim chance the appeal could be upheld as the disciplinary procedure seems to have been less than ideal. It depends on the firm's attitude in these situations.

If not, the OP could quite possibly score a "technical" win at a tribunal on procedural grounds. Although, as I said, it is not likely to yield them much (if anything) in compensation it will cost the firm a significant amount in time and legal fees to defend. That might encourage them to offer a settlement agreement of a smallish amount plus a legally binding agreed reference.

oh_really

Little prospect of arguing C&P on this occasion. For a custom to be upheld it must be long established,reasonable,certain and not contrary to law.; difficult to include fraud attributed to others into the argument.

Jillanddy

There is a slim chance the appeal could be upheld as the disciplinary procedure seems to have been less than ideal. 
That is, of course, allegedly. The OP has made a series of allegations about a senior manager who may hear the appeal - that doesn't make them true. It doesn't mean they are lying, but one's perspective and beliefs may not reflect reality. As someone who is a senior manager myself, it would be incomprehensible for me not to know about a disciplinary that was being conducted by one of the managers that I manage. I would also have some involvement, advising on aspects of policy and procedure where needed. And being brutally honest, I'd be failing in my job if I didn't know "what was going on" - can you imagine how poor a manager I would need to be to not have noticed falsification of records, incompetence or whatever an issue is, because there are few things that get to a disciplinary without some amount of "history". That certainly doesn't mean that I have prejudged a situation, nor that I am incapable of being objective. Equally, what may have happened to others should not be and isn't an indicator of what happens in any other case. So it is only a perception that the procedure may have been "less than ideal" and one for which there really isn't any evidence. 

There are no guilty people in prison, and those that got caught bang to rights have been seriously misjudged because there's a good reason for what they did. Likewise, nobody who ever got disciplined deserved it, and there was always a good reason for what they did, a reason they shouldn't have been found guilty of what they did, or a manager who disciplined them to spite them. There are always exceptions - sometimes someone really is innocent, sometimes the manager might really be out to get them for no good reason. But that usually isn't the case, which is why so many people lose employment tribunals. Life isn't fair, but many people not only expect it to be fair, they even have their own interpretation of what fair means.

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

There is a slim chance the appeal could be upheld as the disciplinary procedure seems to have been less than ideal. 
That is, of course, allegedly. .............

Indeed but that is inevitable on a forum like this.

My point was that the only likely outcomes that are beneficial to the OP are either his job back (with no doubt a final waring) following an upheld appeal or a settlement agreement (or COT3) because the firm would rather avoid the hassle and legal costs involved in fighting a tribunal.

Some firms will favour settling cases they might well have won whereas others will as a matter of policy fight all but the most watertight claims regardless of cost. Who knows which this firm is.

happyc84

I take issue with the point raised that what happens to other people does not apply to the OP.
A firm I worked for sacked workers for sharing an inappropriate joke via email. Managers who were also involved were not sacked. The case went to Employment Tribunal and the sacked workers won their case. A company has to been seen to apply the rules fairly and without prejudice.

Saying that in this case the OP has falsified records so the point I would ask were they forced to do it or if it was easier to go along with the fraud. Not easy but we all have our own moral compass.
 

Jillanddy

happyc84 said:

I take issue with the point raised that what happens to other people does not apply to the OP.
A firm I worked for sacked workers for sharing an inappropriate joke via email. Managers who were also involved were not sacked. The case went to Employment Tribunal and the sacked workers won their case. A company has to been seen to apply the rules fairly and without prejudice.

Saying that in this case the OP has falsified records so the point I would ask were they forced to do it or if it was easier to go along with the fraud. Not easy but we all have our own moral compass.
 

Sorry but that doesn't apply. It is correct that if there are different outcome for employees involved in the same case, then that may be legally unfair. But only may be, not necessarily. So, for example, all things being equal (and the trick is knowing whether they are or not) it is legally fair to have the same disciplinary outcome for everyone or no-one. Equally, for example, if you know that one of three employees stole the takings but you don't know which one, it is actually legally fair to dismiss all of them. But in each case these were people doing (or not doing) the same thing at the same time. In the case you quote, it was the same joke and shared by a single group of people. 

In the OP's case, they are saying that other people have falsified other records at other times, or even the same types of records at other times. But in each situation these are different people falsifying records - separate cases. In that circumstance what happened in another case cannot be introduced into a tribunal because it is not relevant. The tribunal would throw out any such evidence even if you had it - the only reason they admitted it in the case you mention has to be because they were all involved in the same act.

As for moral compasses, the law isn't bothered about morals. Only what is legally right or legally wrong. If you falsify records that is legally wrong.