Dismissed due to gross misconduct, what are my options?

Savvy_Sue

Work with your union. You absolutely can negotiate an agreed reference and that would be my goal.

TheDancingPony

elsien said:

TheDancingPony said:

marcia_ said:

TheDancingPony said:

My other concern is my reference, being sacked for gross misconduct would really affect my future employment prospects more than a conviction would, is it possible to negotiate an agreed reference>?

Also will the job centre try to sanction me for a non-workplace incident, even though the decision is being currently appealed?

 I would get more support from your union and definitely appeal. Probably call acas too.
make a formal complaint to your employer following their complaints procedure then move to mediation or tribunal if not successful. Following these steps the employer might back down and agree to a clean slate so it doesn't become public, 

 I think you have a good case for disability discrimination because you can not be expected to report in when in a hospital and /or suffering from psychosis. Fact is they knew because someone else told them, who was it that told them? So why the need for a separate call from an extremely sick person. 

 Personally I would not want to go back working for them but you can get it cleaned off your record so it doesn't affect future job prospects. 

Thanks. Basically when I was section 136 I saw two psychiatrists and a social worker from the local authority and it was the social worker that informed my employer via the safeguarding route, which I believe had been abused because it is something that doesn't really apply to my role

S136 is very simply just the police holding powers so that someone can be taken to a place of safety and be assessed under the mental health act. It lasts for up to 24 hours. 

The two doctors and the psychiatrist would have  been carrying out the mental health assessment which presumably decided you didn’t need to be detained under the mental health act, because you don’t then mention a section 2 or 3. 

So did you stay in hospital as a voluntary patient which requires capacity for you to agree to, or did you not stay in hospital at all after your arrest? 
People can be in hospital quite unwell but I think you need to be careful about the capacity side of things if you are using that to back up your case, because it’s less than clear from what you’ve posted so far. 

Making safeguarding alerts isn’t optional where there is a concern. The social worker would not have had a choice.

Before my arrest I was section 3 in hospital. I did not stay in hospital after my arrest, I was detained for a few hours and then was given a mental health assessment and allowed to go home, but the medical evidence I have shows that the doctors assessed me as fit to be discharged into police custody, only for me to then be detained due to lack of capacity and returned to the hospital 24 hours later, so their assessment doesn't count for much really, the medical evidence shows that my capacity and psychotic symptoms can fluctuate wildly, when I was discharged I was still having delusional thoughts.

The issue with the safeguarding is that the social worker used the wrong procedure (PiPot) which is not applicable to me as I don't work with vulnerable people or have authority over their care, my employer then abused this process to obtain confidential information from the police regarding the investigation into me and used it in the disciplinary hearing,

TheDancingPony

General_Grant said:

TheDancingPony said:

Yeah I've asked the mods to remove that, point is though local authorities don't necessarily require a DBS check for employees with unrestricted access to personal information of vulnerable service users, the public would be shocked if it was reported in the local press. 

My union guy said something similar, it's very likely they will settle than risk that reputational damage, with all the work I've done for them I've certainly earned my notice pay and then some. 

It would be better if you deleted that post yourself.  I think you'll find some dots to the top right corner of your post which lead to being able to edit or delete.  (Fortunately nobody has quoted it.)

There are no dots as far as I can see, maybe because I'm a newbie?

TheDancingPony

NCC1701-A said:

TheDancingPony said:

NCC1701-A said:

TheDancingPony said:

Why would a settlement agreement be unfair on a new employer? I received commendations for performance so that's not an issue. 

Have a think about it. As an employer you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years. Or you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years, refused to wear our uniform, had X sick leave and was dismissed for gross misconduct.  Both references are true but as an employer would you want to know the omitted information to make an informed choice.

Well obviously I'm disputing that it was gross misconduct.

I’m not asking you to look at it from your point of view, I’m suggesting you think about it from an employer’s point of view. 

I can see it from the employers point of view in so far as someone has bail conditions that mean they can't continue to do their job, however I wouldn't expect someone with severe mental illness to be fully compos mentis straight after being released from hospital and police custody as that is obviously a traumatic experience and will take them some time before they feel they can deal with the work issuew mentally..

TheDancingPony

NCC1701-A said:

TheDancingPony said:

Why would a settlement agreement be unfair on a new employer? I received commendations for performance so that's not an issue. 

Have a think about it. As an employer you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years. Or you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years, refused to wear our uniform, had X sick leave and was dismissed for gross misconduct.  Both references are true but as an employer would you want to know the omitted information to make an informed choice.

The only difference with my reference would be replacing gross misconduct with resignation or something, so there's no deception, I'm not asking my employer to omit my sick days or minor misconduct issues.

Savvy_Sue

TheDancingPony said:

NCC1701-A said:

TheDancingPony said:

Why would a settlement agreement be unfair on a new employer? I received commendations for performance so that's not an issue. 

Have a think about it. As an employer you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years. Or you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years, refused to wear our uniform, had X sick leave and was dismissed for gross misconduct.  Both references are true but as an employer would you want to know the omitted information to make an informed choice.

The only difference with my reference would be replacing gross misconduct with resignation or something, so there's no deception, I'm not asking my employer to omit my sick days or minor misconduct issues.

Sorry, but you didn't resign, did you?

Your starting point is a neutral statement along the lines of "DP worked for us from this date to that date." If your union can improve on that, be grateful.

TheDancingPony

Savvy_Sue said:

TheDancingPony said:

NCC1701-A said:

TheDancingPony said:

Why would a settlement agreement be unfair on a new employer? I received commendations for performance so that's not an issue. 

Have a think about it. As an employer you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years. Or you receive a reference saying TheDancingPony worked for us for 6 years, refused to wear our uniform, had X sick leave and was dismissed for gross misconduct.  Both references are true but as an employer would you want to know the omitted information to make an informed choice.

The only difference with my reference would be replacing gross misconduct with resignation or something, so there's no deception, I'm not asking my employer to omit my sick days or minor misconduct issues.

Sorry, but you didn't resign, did you?

Your starting point is a neutral statement along the lines of "DP worked for us from this date to that date." If your union can improve on that, be grateful.

Well I suppose that depends on the outcome of the appeal, if they deemed that I should be reinstated but I choose to take a settlement offer that's effectively a resignation.

A neutral reference is all I'm asking for really, I have previous managers that still work at the organisation that are prepared to give me a glowing character reference.

Purplelady65

Many organisations now only provide factual references which confirm the dates of employment and salary etc. They may however be asked to confirm if the person has been dismissed or was under any type of formal performance management.

elsien

TheDancingPony said:

elsien said:

TheDancingPony said:

marcia_ said:

TheDancingPony said:

My other concern is my reference, being sacked for gross misconduct would really affect my future employment prospects more than a conviction would, is it possible to negotiate an agreed reference>?

Also will the job centre try to sanction me for a non-workplace incident, even though the decision is being currently appealed?

 I would get more support from your union and definitely appeal. Probably call acas too.
make a formal complaint to your employer following their complaints procedure then move to mediation or tribunal if not successful. Following these steps the employer might back down and agree to a clean slate so it doesn't become public, 

 I think you have a good case for disability discrimination because you can not be expected to report in when in a hospital and /or suffering from psychosis. Fact is they knew because someone else told them, who was it that told them? So why the need for a separate call from an extremely sick person. 

 Personally I would not want to go back working for them but you can get it cleaned off your record so it doesn't affect future job prospects. 

Thanks. Basically when I was section 136 I saw two psychiatrists and a social worker from the local authority and it was the social worker that informed my employer via the safeguarding route, which I believe had been abused because it is something that doesn't really apply to my role

S136 is very simply just the police holding powers so that someone can be taken to a place of safety and be assessed under the mental health act. It lasts for up to 24 hours. 

The two doctors and the psychiatrist would have  been carrying out the mental health assessment which presumably decided you didn’t need to be detained under the mental health act, because you don’t then mention a section 2 or 3. 

So did you stay in hospital as a voluntary patient which requires capacity for you to agree to, or did you not stay in hospital at all after your arrest? 
People can be in hospital quite unwell but I think you need to be careful about the capacity side of things if you are using that to back up your case, because it’s less than clear from what you’ve posted so far. 

Making safeguarding alerts isn’t optional where there is a concern. The social worker would not have had a choice.

Before my arrest I was section 3 in hospital. I did not stay in hospital after my arrest, I was detained for a few hours and then was given a mental health assessment and allowed to go home, but the medical evidence I have shows that the doctors assessed me as fit to be discharged into police custody, only for me to then be detained due to lack of capacity and returned to the hospital 24 hours later, so their assessment doesn't count for much really, the medical evidence shows that my capacity and psychotic symptoms can fluctuate wildly, when I was discharged I was still having delusional thoughts.

The issue with the safeguarding is that the social worker used the wrong procedure (PiPot) which is not applicable to me as I don't work with vulnerable people or have authority over their care, my employer then abused this process to obtain confidential information from the police regarding the investigation into me and used it in the disciplinary hearing,

You were in hospital and the doctors felt that you were well enough to be discharged and well enough to go to the police station

The medical evidence following your arrest would seem to indicate that the police then used their non-medical 136 powers to temporarily hold you and a subsequent further full psychiatric assessment showed that you were not detainable under the MHA and did not need to be re-admitted back to hospital. 

I’m not saying that you weren’t ill or that you weren’t fluctuating/delusional. I’m not a doctor and I wasn’t there. From an outside perspective though I still think you may be pinning more on the lack of capacity evidence than your employer might in a tribunal when it’s shown that regardless of what the police wrote on their paperwork, the doctor who originally discharged you and the subsequent two psychiatrists and a social worker all disagreed.

Doesn’t mean you don’t have other grounds for challenging the decision but you probably do need to think whether a settlement agreement or neutral reference is going to be a better outcome  than a tribunal in the hope of redeployment.

Savvy_Sue

TheDancingPony said:

Well I suppose that depends on the outcome of the appeal, if they deemed that I should be reinstated but I choose to take a settlement offer that's effectively a resignation.

A neutral reference is all I'm asking for really, I have previous managers that still work at the organisation that are prepared to give me a glowing character reference.

There's a risk with previous managers: for one thing, many organisations say that only 'official' references are allowed, and you'd hope that Senior managers would be aware of that. Plus "I managed DP until a date before they left" raises a big red flag.

I still think working with your union to hopefully preempt a tribunal is the best plan. Agreed reference, no mention of gross misconduct, and fewer interesting hits if a new employer googles your name.