Gross Misconduct-Final warning & demotion

[teaboy2]

Teaboy,

 

I've read your last post and you're right, i should be thinking about constructive dismissal and a lot of my friends have said the same thing, it is worth looking into, as i have more of their lack of care for their staff as well, am i right in thinking though that the time frame for an ET is long? will it be quicker if it is constructive dismissal than unfair dismissal?

 

As elpulpo saiid get the appeal done and out of the way first before starting any employment tribunal claim.

 

In repsonse to your question you have 3 months from the date you resign to make a claim constructive dismissal of 3 months from the date in which you exhausted the appeals process to claim if its decided that claiming discrimination would be the better option for you.

 

I believe it will then take 28 days from receiving your claim to acknowldge your claim and weather it will be accepted etc, which it is more then likley to be. after that it all depends on how many cases are ahead of yours in the waiting to be heard so anywhere upto 12 months i expect. but others maybe able to give you a more accurate time scale.

 

But we need you to tell us everything that your employers have done such has breaches of your employment contract or/and your employment terms and conditions, acts of disregard to your health, saftey or well being in general while at work. Any acts of bullying, indimidation or harrassment the list goes on but you get what i mean. Anything that we can use against them we need to know so we can help you decide which is the best course of action to take on when entering a claim for employment tribunal.

[teaboy2]

I agree to an extent, Teaboy.

Though I feel that this lot obviously don't know what they're doing, and if there was a clear agenda to dismiss Darius, they would have done it regarding this matter.

Darius must exhaust the grievance procedure thoroughly first, before even thinking about Constructive Dismissal.

Very, very hard cases to prove, and if he just packs in work now, an ET Judge will likely chuck it out long before it gets near a hearing.

 

Post #44, Teaboy, you put a ps. about a claim on discrimination grounds.

What type of discrimination are ya talking about?

 

basically discriminating someone in favour of another person where the person being discriminated against suffers as a result, such as favouritism resulting in a detrimental effect. which in this case is removal of supvisorary duties which were then passed on to the very person who was favourite.

[neil_tp]

Just to add ET's are very busy at the moment as is ACAS and the CAB offices.

 

 

I agree that from doing my home work, that actually winning a constructive dismissal case is hard. You just need to see the figures/stats for ET cases to see this.

[elpulpo]

But let's just be clear when we start using the word discrimination, Tea boy.

That wouldn't be classed as unlawful discrimination, in the same class as race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender orientation, sexual orientaion, religious affiliation, age, disability (is that all of them?).

 

Discrimination, per se, isn't unlawful.

If I employee 1 person from 100 applicants, I've discriminated against 99.

But, as long as I didn't do so because of one of the reasons listed above, I'm not acting unlawfully.

[honeybee13]

Hello again Darius. I agree with all the recent posts, but have you spoken to the ACAS helpline? I found them very helpful.

[teaboy2]

But let's just be clear when we start using the word discrimination, Tea boy.

That wouldn't be classed as unlawful discrimination, in the same class as race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender orientation, sexual orientaion, religious affiliation, age, disability (is that all of them?).

 

Discrimination, per se, isn't unlawful.

If I employee 1 person from 100 applicants, I've discriminated against 99.

But, as long as I didn't do so because of one of the reasons listed above, I'm not acting unlawfully.

 

theres many forms of discrimination the most common being what you pointed out. But descrimination doesnt have to be unlawful to actually be discrimination. Any form of unfair practice towards one person and not the other is descrimination, yet being treated unfairly is not unlawful unless you fall in the catagorys you mentioned but it is still discrimination. its perfectly possible to claim discrimination for any form of discrimination if it has had a detrimental effect on you.

 

Workplace favouritism

 

And your point about employing one person out of 100 would mean you have discriminated against the other 99 is not true, because they will have all been aware that their was only one position. so you will have acted fairly and not discriminately by accepting applicants and interviewing those that meet the critirea needed to do the job, such as qualifications, driving license, proven work history and reference etc. And of course as you said, you have only acted unlawfully when say refused them becuase they were disabled even though a disabled person maywell be capable of doing that particular job.

 

Basically any form of unfair treatment compared to the treatment others get in the work place is discrimination weather unlawfully or not or direct or indirect it doesnt matter.

Edited December 18, 2009 by teaboy2

[elpulpo]

The problem is that people now use the word 'discrimination' when properly they should say 'unlawful discrimination'.

And it seems that therefore many people hold that any form of preference of one person over another is 'discrimination' and unlawful.

 

Seemingly, Darius has been subjected to unfair treatment by being gradually demoted in his position etc., culminating in this ridiculous accusation.

He's been treated to unfairly, but I'd steer clear of using the word discrimination.

[teaboy2]

but they have acted unlawfully by giving his job to another in favour of a female who also happens to be a close friend of the employer

 

heres a qoute from post 15

 

"Also my boss has also bought in someone in a business support role, and decided it'd be good for her to get to know my job, this woman is a very good of friend of the bosses and i've now found myself being supervisor in name only, she's taken all of my duties, i don't do any of my supervisory duties anymore,"

 

Now thats sex discrimination aswell as favouritism so if thats not acting unlawfully then id love to know how its not. so yes hes been discriminated against

[elpulpo]

No!

Just because the person they brought in happens to be a woman, and Darius happens to be a man (I presume?), doesn't automatically make it sex discrimination!

Granted, if they'd said, "We've decided that only a woman can do this job", where there's no tangible reason why that would be the case, THEN there might be an argument.

 

But to shout sex discrimination is nonsense.

 

It's unfair. It's nepotism, possibly.

But without clear evidence, that's all it is.

 

You worry me, Teaboy.

You talk a lot of sense most of the time.

Then ya come out with cack like that.

[teaboy2]

look at in from the full perspective. 1 group has been treated unfairly while the other has been given preference the groups being male and female.

 

The male groups job status has changed where his duties have been passed to the female group when the female groups job is a different role. this makes it unfair on the male group.

 

No reason has been given as to why the male group has suffered detriment as a result of the female group being preferred to do the male groups actual job. or reasons as to why the male groups responsibilitys have been passed to the female group in the first place

 

The male group has suffered detriment as he still has the job title (prior to the false accusation of course) yet no longer has the status relevent to that job title as the status is now with the female group whos not a supervisor but a business support worker which is not a supervisory role but a support role but is now also acting in a supervisory role as well as support role as a result of benefiting from be given the male groups duties, effectively promoting the female group to supervisor, and demoting the male group

 

The above is unfair and is discrimitive against the male group due to lose of status in his employment.

 

The employer is liable for sex discrimintion as a result of their preferrence towards the female group over the male group who as a result of the employers preference to the female group has suffered detriment in terms of lose of employment status. the employer was more then aware of this when giving the male groups duties to the female group and leaving the male group in an now disfunctional job title. (disfunctional due to being no duties to carry out that would apply to the supervisory role)

 

basically demoting him without actually demoting him.

 

taken from the sex discrimintion act 1975 section 5 subsection 2

 

(2) It is unlawful for a person, in the case of a woman

employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate

against her-

(a) in the way he affords her access to opportunities for

promotion (such as another employees duties), transfer or training, or to any other benefits,

facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately

omitting to afford her access to them, or

(b) by dismissing her, or subjecting her to any other

detriment.

 

 

the same applies for men as stated in section 1 ss 2 of the act

 

Basically the female group has been afforded by the employer extra access to benefits of employment at the expense of that of the male groups job status. basically she was given the benifit of the supervisory role that was held by darius when no such role for another supervisor existed resulting in darius suffering the detriment in the loss of his duties making his position disfunctional and therefore redundant. The employer was well aware of that so yes it is sex discrimination and favouritism, if it had been another male group an not a female group then it will have just been discrimination on grounds of favouritism and not sex.

 

Bit in red is my own added statement.

[elpulpo]

No. Absolutely not.

 

It just so happens that one person in this matter is a Man.

 

and

 

It just so happens that the other person is a Woman.

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that they have passed the Man's duties on to a Woman Because of their respective genders.

 

Undoubtedly, the way they've treated this man is unfair. Quite probably a breach of contract.

But there's no evidence that it constitutes Gender Discrimination.

 

So. I'm presently applying for a job. I'm fairly confident that I've got the job, I think it's down to me and one other person.

If my prospective employer chooses to employ the other person, that person Must be (as I am) -

 

-Male. European. Born in March 1971 in the UK.

-The product of an English/Welsh Roman Catholic Father and a French Jewish Mother.

-Heterosexual.

-Someone who has been diagnosed as suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder.

 

If the Employer doesn't employ some such person, they've automatically subjected me to unlawful discrimination?

[teaboy2]

No. Absolutely not.

 

It just so happens that one person in this matter is a Man.

 

and

 

It just so happens that the other person is a Woman.

 

Its the believe you are sexually discriminate or discriminated on any grounds that is all that is needed to bring a claim to tribunal. It is then the employer that has to prove otherwise, in this case it be very difficult to prove otherwise.

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that they have passed the Man's duties on to a Woman Because of their respective genders.

 

Undoubtedly, the way they've treated this man is unfair. Quite probably a breach of contract.

But there's no evidence that it constitutes Gender Discrimination.

 

So. I'm presently applying for a job. I'm fairly confident that I've got the job, I think it's down to me and one other person.

If my prospective employer chooses to employ the other person, that person Must be (as I am) -

 

-Male. European. Born in March 1971 in the UK.

-The product of an English/Welsh Roman Catholic Father and a French Jewish Mother.

-Heterosexual.

-Someone who has been diagnosed as suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder.

 

If the Employer doesn't employ some such person, they've automatically subjected me to unlawful discrimination? (no, it just means they were the more suitable a candidate for the job, based on their qualification, experience, proven work history, and capablity to do the job and on how they impressed themself to the person interviewing them at the interview(s). theres nothing discrimitive when it comes to choosing the most suitable person for the job. its got nothing to do with religion, race, sex, sexuality or weather your disabled or not. in the case you were disabled then the above will still apply for all jobs unless the job wasnt suitable to a disabled person such as working on an oil rig when the disabled perosn is confined to a wheelchair).

 

Your not seeing the whole picture. The fact is this female has been brought in and she has been given benefits of promotion or transfer from a business support person (which has nothing to do with shop/office/factory floor supervisory roles) that she should not have had due to their being no such position to accomadate her. But because she has, the boss has knowingly acting unlawfully towards darius by making his position redundant in order to accomadate her by giving her darius's position. shes has been given prefredential treatment over darius and it can been implied as sex discrimination on the basis shes been given such special treatment with regards to benefitting from this. yet there is absolutly no reason as to why she should have been promoted to darius position from a business support role to a completely different field of expertise when their was no requirement or need to do so.

 

so in my opinon the boss has acted in favour of a woman when their was no need to favour either a woman or other man above darius, which is what makes it sexual. the boss favoured having this woman in darius's role simple as, there is no other reason for it especially when you consider the fact that darius was coping so well in the role that they even had him train her, prior to dropping the bombshell on him.

 

Also it will mean that the employer has sexually discriminated her too by favouring her. as stated in the sex discrimintion act. he is discriminating her by affording access to benifits, promotions etc, that she would not otherwise be entitled to such as in the case where a position doesnt exists so shes given darius position instead. which is exactly whats happened here. just as he would also be dicriminating her by denying her access, should they be available on an equal basis as all other employees and applicants (which brings us back to whos the most capable of the job thats available)

 

taken from the sex discrimintion act 1975 section 5 subsection 2

 

PART II

DISCRIMINATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT FIELD

Discrimination by employers

6.-(1) It is unlawful for a person, in relation to employ-

ment by him/her at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate

against a woman/man-

(a) in the arrangements he/she makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment, or (such as what has happened in this case in regards to the arrangements made (such as removing darius of his duties) to offer her employment of a position all ready filled by darius)

(b) in the terms on which he/she offers him/her that employment, or

© by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him/her that

employment.

(2) It is unlawful for a person, in the case of a woman/man

employed by him/her at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate

against her/him-

(a) in the way he/she affords her/him access to opportunities for

promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits,

facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately

omitting to afford her/him access to them, or (such as giving her pomotion to a job already filled by darius when their no reason to do so and as a result its detrimental to darius)

(b) by dismissing her/him, or subjecting her/him to any other

detriment.

 

dont forget discrimination against you can work in your favour to if you are the preferred person. because it not just darius here that been discriminated against its the female who has been discriminated against aswell for being afforded promotion, when no such role to promote her to was vacant, just because she was the one the employer preferred to be in darius's role rather then darius himself. so theirs alot of misunderstanding as to what sexual discrimination is, the more generally accept view of sexual discrimination is when one sex discriminates against the other in a sexual way or manner, sexually harrassment or sexistum being the most common in which sexual discrimination is not limited too, as there are many forms. but its also sexual discrimination when a member of the same sex discriminates you in favour of someone of the opposite sex, which in regards to employment can results in loss or reduction of status in your job. such as what has happened to darius.

 

heres perfect example of cases of sexual discrimination taken from sexual discrimination - compensation for sex discrimination and harassment

 

Direct Sex Discrimination

An example of direct sex discrimination would include being bullied or harassed by your employer on the grounds of your sex. Alternatively your employer may discriminate against you by allowing colleagues to use offensive and discriminatory language.

 

Example A

You are sent a number of sexually explicit ‘joke' e-mails by your work colleagues, which you are offended by and which you consider treat women less favourably. You tell your employer you are offended by these e-mails and consider them discriminatory. Your employer does nothing about it and tells you that it is just ‘banter'. This could be considered sex discrimination for which your employer may be liable.

 

 

 

Another example is where you are overlooked for promotion or other opportunities on the grounds of your sex.

 

 

Example B

You are working in an environment where you are constantly overlooked for promotion or a pay increase in favour of your male colleagues.(Or in darius case a woman was promoted into a position currently held by himself as a result of his bosses preference of the woman over him, resulting in the lose of his status in that very position he held that was given to the woman)

There is no valid reason for this and you believe (believe being a big factor, as its all you need to make a claim to tribunal for discrimination) it is on the basis that your employer discriminates against you on the grounds of your sex. In these circumstances an Employment Tribunal is likely to require your employer to prove that they did not discriminate against you in their decisions. (which would be very difficult for them to prove given what information darius has given us) get my point? sorry its bit messy, but had to add the extra bits to make my point clear.

 

Have you ever noticed how all infomation, adivsories and guides regarding sexual discrimination alway refer to the woman as the victim ("You are working in an environment where you are constantly overlooked for promotion or a pay increase in favour of your male colleagues.") and never the man or trans gender. that its self is sexually discriminative. says alot doesn't it? people forget that men are just as likely to be the victim yet when they are its oh no thats not sexual discrimination when it in fact is. yet if it was a woman and the same thing happened we would automatically say yes it is. why? because thats a result of the informtion, guides regarding sexual discrimination always referring to women as the victims, so over the years it has become embedded in our minds, think about it, when you here about sexual discimination or just the mention of the 2 words the first thing you think about is a woman being discriminated against.

 

Now i cant be more clearer then whats above regarding the law as thats the law. if you cant see why this sexual discrimination then am sorry but i cant explain it any clearer then than that.

Edited December 19, 2009 by teaboy2

[dariusman31]

theres many forms of discrimination the most common being what you pointed out. But descrimination doesnt have to be unlawful to actually be discrimination. Any form of unfair practice towards one person and not the other is descrimination, yet being treated unfairly is not unlawful unless you fall in the catagorys you mentioned but it is still discrimination. its perfectly possible to claim discrimination for any form of discrimination if it has had a detrimental effect on you.

 

Workplace favouritism

 

And your point about employing one person out of 100 would mean you have discriminated against the other 99 is not true, because they will have all been aware that their was only one position. so you will have acted fairly and not discriminately by accepting applicants and interviewing those that meet the critirea needed to do the job, such as qualifications, driving license, proven work history and reference etc. And of course as you said, you have only acted unlawfully when say refused them becuase they were disabled even though a disabled person maywell be capable of doing that particular job.

 

Basically any form of unfair treatment compared to the treatment others get in the work place is discrimination weather unlawfully or not or direct or indirect it doesnt matter.

 

I'd go with workplace favourtism rather than going down the sex discrimination route, i don't really want to get tied in knots with discrimination laws and interpretation etc.

 

I've now been signed off work, for 2 weeks (until 4th Jan) prescribed sleeping tablets and the doctor will put me in touch with a counsellor.

I'm putting my appeal letter in tomorrow morning with my sick note and hopefully have an appeal hearing at the beginning of Jan, get this sorted out. If my bosses boss, sides against me then i'll put the greivance in, then see what happens.

[teaboy2]

yeah thats perfectly fine darius. as i said in an earlier post, all you need is the believe you have been dicriminated against in some form or another in order to make a claim, as it would be the employer that would be expected to prove that you weren't, which from what you've said its clear you have been. Keep us update on how things go with the appeal and grievance.

[dariusman31]

yeah thats perfectly fine darius. as i said in an earlier post, all you need is the believe you have been dicriminated against in some form or another in order to make a claim, as it would be the employer that would be expected to prove that you weren't, which from what you've said its clear you have been. Keep us update on how things go with the appeal and grievance.

 

 

Thanks mate, will keep you posted, as i said, letter with grounds for appeal and sick note going in tomorrow, will have to wait for a date for an appeal hearing.

[monkeychicken]

For it to be unlawful sex discrimination, the reaon OP did not get the post has to be BECAUSE of his sex.

 

What you're talking about is about groups - i.e. applying a "PCP" (I think it stands for Policy, Criterion or Practice) which on the face of it seems to be fair but has a greater adverse impact on one sex or other. A similar situation applies in the case of race, disability etc.

 

A good example of that is when the Met used to have a policy of minimum height. This disadvantages certain races more than others. Even then, there is a defence that the height is a major fact in determining ability to do the job. In case of the Met, they failed to establish that you had to be tall to do the job (particularly as they had a lower height requirement for women). So, they abandoned that policy.

 

I believe this is indirect discrimination.

 

 

In the case of the OP, I cannot see any PCP applied, which favours women more than men.

 

It may well be unfair to appoint the woman, but it is not unlawfui (based on the evidence provided so far).

 

In the legal arena, it is always advisable to be careful about the language used (victimisation, discrimination etc) lest confusion/ misunderstanding is caused.

[elpulpo]

Thanks Monkeychicken, glad someone agrees with me.

[dariusman31]

Thanks Monkeychicken, glad someone agrees with me.

 

 

oh i agree with everything you said elpulpo, i'm not going too get into all that discrimination stuff as it is soo difficult to prove (especially in todays society) so i'm going to do what's neccasary to get this allegation removed, then move on, then see what happens about a claim.

[greendollar]

Being charged with Gross Misconduct does not mean "automatic dismissal".

The Tribunal frowns on companies that do not use all other disciplinary measures at their disposal ...verbal/written warnings/demotion/deductions in pay etc,etc.....dismissal should be the last resort and the Tribunal will expect companies to consider other options rather than sack people.

[teaboy2]

Being charged with Gross Misconduct does not mean "automatic dismissal".

The Tribunal frowns on companies that do not use all other disciplinary measures at their disposal ...verbal/written warnings/demotion/deductions in pay etc,etc.....dismissal should be the last resort and the Tribunal will expect companies to consider other options rather than sack people.

 

Thats true for less serious offences that are not classed as gross misconduct. but gross misconduct offences allow for the employer to instantly dismiss the employee due to the seriousness of the offence. I.e theft, assualt, under infulence of alchol or drugs or having them on the premises (alchol on premises in unopened containers is usually allowed and simply deemed part of your weekly shop so to speack and consumption during work related parties etc is also allowed with and only with the employers expressed permission), Harrasment, bullying, racistism and many more similar or criminal offences against the employer of other company employees, customers or business associates, all fall under gross misconduct and allow for instant dismissal without the need of any warnings such as verbal and written warnings. However a full disclipinary procedure allowing for investigation, formal hearings and appeals must take place. However the final decision on what course of action, be it dismissal or issuing with a warning (likley to be final warning in the unlikely event that your not dismissed for gross misconduct) is at the discretion of the employer.

 

Below is the correct legal procedure regarding disciplinary procedures, taken from UK Employment Law - Disciplinary

 

 

DISCIPLINARY

There will often be occasions where an employer has an issue with an employee’s conduct usually, but not always, whilst at work. The employer should have in place an appropriate disciplinary procedure which should be followed when this situation arises.

The purpose of any disciplinary procedure is to help and encourage all employees to achieve and maintain standards of conduct, attendance and job performance and to ensure that any failure to observe the employer’s rules is fairly dealt with. However, the employer will also be required to demonstrate that a fair procedure has been followed if it becomes necessary to consider dismissing an employee for an act or series of acts of misconduct.

Investigation

In serious cases of misconduct no action should be taken by an employer before a proper investigation has been carried out relating to the circumstances of the matter complained of. If appropriate, the employer may consider suspending an employee from work for a specified period whilst the investigation is undertaken. However, if the employee is suspended their contract of employment must continue together with all rights which the employee has under the contract including payment of salary/wages.

Disciplinary Hearing

If as a result of the investigation it appears that an act of misconduct has been committed the employer should proceed with a disciplinary hearing. The employee should be given details in writing of the complaint sufficiently in advance of the hearing in order to permit them to prepare themselves. At the hearing the employee should be given the opportunity to state their case and the employee should also be permitted to be accompanied by a fellow employee of their choice.

Minor Acts of Misconduct

Misconduct offences broadly fall within two categories – those that justify instant dismissal without notice or payment in lieu (often referred to as gross misconduct) and less serious offences which may ultimately lead to dismissal with notice if repeated more than once.

Examples of the latter category include bad time-keeping, unreasonable or unexplained absence, persistent or irregular absenteeism, minor damage to an employer’s property, smoking in no-smoking areas, use of obscene or offensive language, etc. It is highly advisable for employer’s to set out a non-exclusive list of examples in their disciplinary procedure.

Procedure

The following procedure should apply in cases of minor acts of misconduct:

1. Oral Warning

2. First Written Warning

3. Final Written Warning

4. Dismissal

In relation to the above, the employer should reserve the right in the disciplinary procedure to instigate the procedure at any stage if appropriate and/or, if necessary, to omit any particular stage depending on the severity of the misconduct. This would, for example, permit an employer to issue a final written warning for a first offence if the offence is serious but falls just short of gross misconduct.

Gross Misconduct

Examples of gross misconduct include theft, physical assault, breach of duty of confidentiality, sexual or racial harassment, fighting, wilful damage to an employers property, sale and/or consumption of alcohol or drugs at work or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs at work, and failure to comply with lawful and reasonable instructions, etc. Once again, it is highly advisable for employer’s to set out a non-exclusive list of examples of gross misconduct in their disciplinary procedure.

Appeals

An employee should always be given the chance to appeal against any disciplinary decision taken against them. The appeal should be chaired, if possible, by someone who was not party to the investigation into the offence or the subsequent disciplinary hearing. At the appeal the employee should be entitled to attend to state their case and to be accompanied by a fellow employee of their choice.

PROCEDURE CHECKLIST

If in doubt always refer to the following procedure checklist when conducting a disciplinary procedure:

 

• All relevant facts should be gathered promptly before memories fade. If necessary statements should be taken and documents collected. In serious cases suspension should be considered with pay while an investigation is conducted
  
• The complaint must be clear and the question should be asked is action needed at this stage
  
• If action is needed it is necessary to decide if that action should be advice and counselling, or, formal disciplinary action
  
• If formal action is required a disciplinary interview should be arranged. It is necessary to ensure:
  - the employee is aware of the nature of the complaint and that the interview is a disciplinary one
  - that the employee is told where and when the interview will take place and of their right to be accompanied
  - that if possible a second member of management is present.
  
• At the beginning of the interview those present should be introduced and the purpose of the interview explained. Also the employee should be informed of the nature of the complaint and given details of supporting evidence.
  
• The employee should be allowed to state his case and consideration should be given to any explanations put forward.
  
• If new facts emerge it may be necessary to decide whether further investigation is required. If so the interview should be adjourned and re-convened when the investigation is completed.
  
• Unless the case is very straightforward an adjournment should be called before reaching a decision. A clear view needs to be arrived at on the facts, and if they are disputed it will be necessary to decide on the balance of probability what version of the facts is true.
  
• Before deciding on the penalty consideration must be given to:
  - the gravity of the offence and whether the disciplinary procedure gives guidance
  - the penalty applied to similar cases in the past;
  - the employee's disciplinary record and general service;
  - any mitigating circumstances;
  - whether the proposed penalty is reasonable in the circumstances.
  
• The disciplinary interview should then be re-convened to clearly inform the employee of the decision and penalty, if any. The employee's right of appeal and how it operates should be explained. In the case of a warning the improvement expected, how long the warning will last before further action is taken, and the consequences of this further action on a failure to improve should all be explained.
  
• A record of the action taken needs to be made. If more than an oral warning has been given the disciplinary action must be confirmed to the employee in writing and a simple record of the action kept on file for future reference.
  
• The employee must be given the right of appeal. If the right of appeal is exercised by the employee a further hearing should be arranged. This should be chaired by a higher level of management if possible, specifically someone not involved in the disciplinary process itself. The employee should be given, once again, the opportunity to state his case and put forward any explanations.
  
• The emphasis on the appeal hearing is to ensure the disciplinary hearing was carried out correctly, the evidence presented appropriately, and the employee given the opportunity to present his case. It does not need to be a re-hearing of the original disciplinary hearing unless there have been procedural errors which need to be addressed, or new evidence has come to light. In such circumstances a re-convened disciplinary hearing usually should be called and the process commenced again.
  
• Finally, the employee's performance should be monitored. The disciplinary action should be followed up with the object of encouraging improvement and progress should be regularly discussed with the individual.
  

You are confusing your rights as an employee whos committed minor less serious offences with your rights and the rights or your employer for when more serious offences of gross misconduct are committed.

Edited December 22, 2009 by teaboy2
spelling

[dariusman31]

Just to let you know, i handed in my appeal, (my brother put it personally in the hand of my manager) he was shaking as he read it and told my brother, he'd have to speak to his legal people as this 'looked' like a grievance against him.

 

Damn right, i wrote advising him that i'm appealing and the reasons for that, and then a little background over the last 6 months just to paint a picture for his boss, who will be dealing with the appeal.

 

I've also been signed off until the 4th Jan for stress at work and prescribed sleeping tablets, also my doctor will be referring me to a counsillor in the new year.

 

Soon as i get a date and subsequent letters etc. i'll let you know.

[teaboy2]

once this is over with, i would sure love to see a copy of the letter you had written, as no doubt whatever you said in it, it sounds like the manager **** himself when your brother handed it to him lol

 

dont put the letter on here though because you never know if their watching or not.

[dariusman31]

once this is over with, i would sure love to see a copy of the letter you had written, as no doubt whatever you said in it, it sounds like the manager **** himself when your brother handed it to him lol

 

dont put the letter on here though because you never know if their watching or not.

 

i wouldn't put it on here, but yes i had to think very carefully about what i wanted to say and how to say it, so it didn't come across defamatory, or indeed inflammatory, i think my boss knows he's dropped the ball on this and other things, and now his boss (the chairman of our board of directors) is going to find out exactly how he is running the company.

[dariusman31]

hi,

got my appeal date through, spoke to my boss as it's a week after my sick note runs out for stress at work, he's calling me on monday, to tell me whether he wants me to go back, he's taking some advice (probably be from his legal team)

 

I'll update as to the result. whatever happens though i'm looking for another job. then probably a claim.

[elpulpo]

How long after you requested the appeal is the appeal date?