Hello new guy with possable Victimisation at work?

[andyuk2007]

Hello, the other day the following happen to myself at work and wounded if any could help me? I have recently been accused of braking my company's internet usage policy (no using the internet for personal use in work hours ect). To which I have admitted (no use in lying everyone does it one, chap even sat that showing the head of IT videos of his dog on utube at 3pm). But I feel that other people who abuse the policy to the same level or grater than me are getting off as I was “grassed” up by fellow employees (one who is kissing up to management and another trying to take the heat off himself and his bad performance). Its not effecting my work or performance as the stats we receive every weeks reflect this (I finish either at or near the top). So I feel that I am being made an example of while other get away with it. Any help or advice would be a great help. Thanks

[saintly_1]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

I have moved your thread to the employment forum where it will be better advised

 

 

saint

[elche]

Victimisation in the legal sense is not what you have suffered, as you have not made a complaint of discrim covered by SDA, RRA or EPA.

 

You admit breaching net policy at work. This is not GM so should not lead to a dismissal. Were you aware of the policy beforehand?

 

Wait and see if you suffer a disciplinary sanction and then I would appeal the sanction on grounds of lack of consistency of treatment vis a vis the other workers.

 

The lack of consistency of treatment alone is not really a defence more facts going to mitigation.

[prushton]

its one thing for the company to have an internet usage policy, but if that policy is not widely known about or if it was never brought to your attention ( usually companies get their employees to sign to say that they have read and understood a policy) so they can produce this in situations such as the one you find yourself in now. How can you be guilty of breaching that policy?.

 

For them to be able to use this internet policy against you they would have to show that you knew about it.

[andyuk2007]

Thanks, The policy itself is known about (we have to enforce it with other users). I don't know if I've ever signed one though. Also the main use of the internet comes down to not either having anything to do or not being given anything stimulating to do (I can only take reinstalling so many printers a day). I have brought this to the manager attention a few time yet nothing has been done. Thanks for the help guy.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Victimisation in the legal sense is not what you have suffered, as you have not made a complaint of discrim covered by SDA, RRA or EPA.

 

How do you know the OP hasn't complained about what you point out?

 

However, victimisation is a possible accusation against the employer by the OP in this circumstance because they are being singled out for a transgression that others are not.

 

That is being treated less favourably than others, possibly bullying, and the OP objects to it and they are excercising their legal rights at work not to be treated like this which is victimisation.

[prushton]

Clearly you have been singled out, perhaps to deter others in the future, The facts remain though, to use this policy against you they must show you knew such a policy existed, by producing documentation with your signature on to show you had read and understood the policy. If they cannot produce this, then it strengthens your defence that you didnt know about it .

 

If you are not sure if you signed such a policy, ask to see your personnel file, they cannot refuse to do this. If you did sign such a policy a copy should be in your file. If there isnt one you just deny knowing such a policy exists and point out to them that its one thing to have policies, but if you do not draw the employees attention to them, how can you be in breach of the said policies ?

 

Also you should ask why you are being singled out, when others have used the internet at work. Tell them that you consider this to be victimisation and that should they persist in trying to discipline you and you only , then you will get the union involved.

[Batfink]

You admit breaching net policy at work. This is not GM so should not lead to a dismissal.

 

You need to check your staff handbook/policy/contract - where I work now (and my previous four employers) have said that breach of the firm's IT policy is classed as gross misconduct...

[elche]

How do you know the OP hasn't complained about what you point out?

 

However, victimisation is a possible accusation against the employer by the OP in this circumstance because they are being singled out for a transgression that others are not.

 

That is being treated less favourably than others, possibly bullying, and the OP objects to it and they are excercising their legal rights at work not to be treated like this which is victimisation.

 

If you re-read the initial post you will find no suggestion of the OP having made any such allegation at work and thus I stand by the statement, on the facts as they were disclosed in the OP.

 

In my experience people who are suffering victimisation in the legal sense will always tell you why, “It’s because I submitted a grievance about my line manager last month ... It is because I complained that I didn’t have a written contract of employment etc…”

 

They generally tell you this as it helps explain why the action is happening, i.e. the motivation of the employer. As there is no mention of this, the facts of the original OP, do not = victimisation.

 

As for Batfink’s comment:

 

You need to check your staff handbook/policy/contract - where I work now (and my previous four employers) have said that breach of the firm's IT policy is classed as gross misconduct...

 

Just because a type of behaviour is listed as GM in a Company Handbook does not mean that it will be viewed as GM by an ET.

 

We have to go back to basics and ask what GM is?

 

GM is conduct so serious that it goes to the heart of the employment contract and shatters it beyond repair. You have to ask yourself is using the net in work time such conduct? I submit not. Furthermore if it is GM why has the OP not been suspended (or indeed dismissed) whilst the investigation happens – the suspension (or dismissal) a reflection of the ‘shattered contract’.

 

If the OP is dismissed and brings proceedings for unfair dismissal, the employer will have to pass the test of reasonableness as per s.98(4) ERA i.e. that dismissing the employee fell within the range of reasonable responses.

 

Thus while you state that where you work now and your last 4 employer’s define this as GM, my question would be how many people were actually dismissed for GM for breaching this policy in a similar way to the OP? And if any how many were successfully defended as fair dismissals?

Edited August 10, 2008 by elche
typo!