Disciplinary for using mobile phone

[M_Ons]

You're going to pull the race and gender card because you got caught using your phone on the shop floor and admitted it? If you are, then i would be very VERY VERY careful about doing it.

 

Errr No. I'm pulling the discrimination card because everyone else who got caught were women, white and never got a disciplinary even though they did the exact same thing as me.

 

Fyi, they also admitted to it and never got a disciplinary. No difference. So why am I being pulled?

[M_Ons]

I think he wants to find out why he has been treated differently to his Co-Workers, who weren't disiplined at all but carried out the same act. I think you would be aggrieved in the same situation, especially as the initial sanction was a warning, the OP was left with that being the end of the matter. Then out of the blue, being summoned to HD for a disiplinary. So what are the company pulling here?

 

Exactly. I'm being treated differently.

[M_Ons]

None that we know of. Most companies dont have it stated in the handbook but as an addition yet to reach the handbook. Again, he cannot state the race and gender issue unless he has absolute proof of it. he would be in much more trouble than he has been already otherwise.

 

Plus reading back through this thread, i get the feeling we havent been told everything, so we are swaying towards a 1 sided discussion.

 

Who's we? Any policy a company has im pretty sure by law has to be avaliable for staff to see.

 

Proof of discrimination? Lol. I'm clearly being treated differently. The question is why and what does it fall under. Why would I be in more trouble then I already am if I claim discrimination? I feel like i'm being singled out.

 

You haven't been told everything? Err. Yes you have. You don't even answer my questions in relation to what you've typed. I think you're just giving opinion rather than fact. I need someone to help me with facts.

[renegadeimp]

We meaning the people on here that YOU are asking advice from.

 

You are being treated differently, but discrimination? Prove it. How do you know others havent been treated the same as you? Disciplinary results are confidential unless the person decides to tell others. On that part you are working on conjecture and hypothesis, not facts.

 

You then say you FEEL like you are being singled out. Again, youd need proof of it.

 

And no, we havent been told everything. We have heard a part of a accusation from one side.

 

Now, im not trying to put you down, but you NEED to work with hard facts. Not guesswork.

 

 

How about going to your HR manager, and asking them where in the OFFICIAL company handbox/policy it specifically states that phones are not allowed in the workplace/shop floor?

 

 

Start at the beginning and do some fact finding. Do NOT start playing the racism and discriminatory card.

[rebel11]

We know that a senior manager has been trying to get rid of him. Mobiles Phones have been around for a long time, it is very unlikely to be a latest addition. He can say I have been treated differently and ask why? but then needs to ask the questions to find the answers to that question. You really need to stop accusing him of playing the race / gender card.

 

None that we know of. Most companies dont have it stated in the handbook but as an addition yet to reach the handbook. Again, he cannot state the race and gender issue unless he has absolute proof of it. he would be in much more trouble than he has been already otherwise.

 

Plus reading back through this thread, i get the feeling we havent been told everything, so we are swaying towards a 1 sided discussion.

[renegadeimp]

I didnt accuse him. He stated it himself. But lets leave that to one side. The main thing is that the OP gets a full copy of current policy in writing. That will be the decider. Not what a random manager says.

[Emmzzi]

When you argue the toss about if you can tell its a phone on CCTV, throw in gender, and them try and tell me you aren't trying to wriggle out of it, I have a credibility gap. I'm sure your boss will too. You aren't a good enough dissembler to bluff this.

Edited October 2, 2014 by citizenB

[becky2585]

How would you tell the difference? If it's not discrimination what is it? You can't treat staff different.

 

The point is that discrimination has a very concise meaning in law. Everybody possesses protected characteristics by virtue of their sex and race, but a claim can only be brought if you are discriminated against because of that characteristic.

 

If it was based on one characteristic it would be more believable, but you're basically trying to mould a claim into something that just isn't there on the facts. Disparity in treatment, yes - unlawful discrimination, probably not. Unless there are some other facts which we are unaware of.

[stevemLS]

"All my previous disciplinaries"?

 

I've been at work 25 years and haven't had one.

 

Not all "rules" need to be in writing for them to have force, the employer needs to adequately bring them to the attention of staff, which they have plainly done here.

[M_Ons]

We meaning the people on here that YOU are asking advice from.

 

You are being treated differently, but discrimination? Prove it. How do you know others havent been treated the same as you? Disciplinary results are confidential unless the person decides to tell others. On that part you are working on conjecture and hypothesis, not facts.

 

I don't think you read my replies cause you ask the same questions again and again.

 

The 2 people who were also caught using their phones told me themselfs they never got a disciplinary and only had a "investigation" when they were caught using a mobile phone. I dunno how many times I have to repeat this. So this makes it FACT!

 

You then say you FEEL like you are being singled out. Again, youd need proof of it.

 

Answered above.

 

And no, we havent been told everything. We have heard a part of a accusation from one side.

 

Yeah like I need to lie to get a pat on my back.

 

Now, im not trying to put you down, but you NEED to work with hard facts. Not guesswork.

 

 

How about going to your HR manager, and asking them where in the OFFICIAL company handbox/policy it specifically states that phones are not allowed in the workplace/shop floor?

 

 

Start at the beginning and do some fact finding. Do NOT start playing the racism and discriminatory card.

 

There is no guesswork. I've been giving you facts which you are clearly ignoring. You've even ignored where i've stated 2 times i'm waiting for HR to get back to me regarding the official policy on mobile phones.

[M_Ons]

We know that a senior manager has been trying to get rid of him. Mobiles Phones have been around for a long time, it is very unlikely to be a latest addition. He can say I have been treated differently and ask why? but then needs to ask the questions to find the answers to that question. You really need to stop accusing him of playing the race / gender card.

 

Exactly.

[M_Ons]

I didnt accuse him. He stated it himself. But lets leave that to one side. The main thing is that the OP gets a full copy of current policy in writing. That will be the decider. Not what a random manager says.

 

What, I accused myself? Lol.

[M_Ons]

When you argue the toss about if you can tell its a phone on CCTV, throw in gender, and them try and tell me you aren't trying to wriggle out of it, I have a credibility gap. I'm sure your boss will too. You aren't a good enough dissembler to bluff this.

 

I obviously can't argue it's not a phone after admitting to it can I.

 

Is there anybody on here with actual good advice and who reads what I type except rebel11.

Edited October 2, 2014 by citizenB

[M_Ons]

The point is that discrimination has a very concise meaning in law. Everybody possesses protected characteristics by virtue of their sex and race, but a claim can only be brought if you are discriminated against because of that characteristic.

 

If it was based on one characteristic it would be more believable, but you're basically trying to mould a claim into something that just isn't there on the facts. Disparity in treatment, yes - unlawful discrimination, probably not. Unless there are some other facts which we are unaware of.

 

Okay. So tell me. Why do you think there is no discrimination here? Forget that i'm male. Let's go with race. Why is there no discrimination?

 

"discrimination" implies a disparity in treatment of individuals or groups, so what's the difference in the wording you keep using of "Disparity in treatment" and discrimination when to me they are the same thing.

[M_Ons]

"All my previous disciplinaries"?

 

I've been at work 25 years and haven't had one.

 

Not all "rules" need to be in writing for them to have force, the employer needs to adequately bring them to the attention of staff, which they have plainly done here.

 

I've had 3 over 4yrs but they were all for sickness cause I have health issues.

 

I'm pretty sure all policy needs to be written down. Can you show me where it's enforceable without it?

[Vauban]

Okay. So tell me. Why do you think there is no discrimination here? Forget that i'm male. Let's go with race. Why is there no discrimination?

 

Because, as others have tried to explain, you'd have to demonstrate that the difference in treatment was caused or motivated by your race or gender - not simply that you were treated differently from someone of a different race or gender. If you had previous "form" for, for the sake of argument, being a difficult employee or someone with a record of misdemeanor then perhaps that could explain why management took a less forgiving line: I imagine they have some discretion.

[BazzaS]

I obviously can't argue it's not a phone after admitting to it can I.

 

Is there anybody on here with actual good advice and who reads what I type except rebel11.

 

Emmzi and becky know what they are talking about.

It seems that to qualify as "actual good advice" and "having read what you type" in your view they have to be telling you what you want to hear.

If you disregard the good advice of becky and Emzzi and only listen to what you want to hear in your disciplinary : I suspect it'll go more poorly for you than necessary.

 

If you really want to make things messy, accuse them of discrimination without knowing what the employment law definition is, and then tell them that the CCTV doesn't prove it was a phone (given, as others have noted : you've already admitted it was!).

Are you really trying to get yourself deeper in the mire?.

[Emmzzi]

so you have a history of poor attendance, and are argumentative, and pedantic (going on your posts here)

 

I would say that is the reason for the discrimination and is legal.

 

humble and sincere apology is the best shot at keeping the job. Not arguing the toss.

[griffzilla]

OK - if you want a reason why the outcomes could be different, that isn't based upon anything other than the situations.

 

Person one - called into an investigation meeting for using phone on shop floor.

Manager: "What is the policy for using a phone...?"

Employee: "I don't know"

 

Outcome - told to not do it again.

 

Person two - called into an investigation meeting for using phone on shop floor.

Manager: "What is the policy for using a phone...?"

Employee: "Not to do it, but I did it anyway..."

 

Outcome - Disciplinary.

[rebel11]

In the OP's original post he asks a host of questions, so I don't think he's trying to mould anything. We don't know the employer's position as to why they have taken different action in a similar situations. The only way the OP can find out is to ask his employers. He is still employed by the company. So there is no need for him to do anything at the moment.

 

The point is that discrimination has a very concise meaning in law. Everybody possesses protected characteristics by virtue of their sex and race, but a claim can only be brought if you are discriminated against because of that characteristic.

 

If it was based on one characteristic it would be more believable, but you're basically trying to mould a claim into something that just isn't there on the facts. Disparity in treatment, yes - unlawful discrimination, probably not. Unless there are some other facts which we are unaware of.

[rebel11]

If multiple employees have carried out the same action, then clearly the employer hasn't bought it to the attention of the employees in a meaningful way (Employee Handbook), they keep doing it.

 

"All my previous disciplinaries"?

 

I've been at work 25 years and haven't had one.

 

Not all "rules" need to be in writing for them to have force, the employer needs to adequately bring them to the attention of staff, which they have plainly done here.

[king12345]

I tell you how a colleague got away with using a phone while on duty and ended up only getting a warning.

I don't suggest you do this but it could be an excuse, others might advice better.

This colleague was caught using a phone and like you, admitted it was a phone.

When called for a formal interview he pulled out his phone and showed the manager that he had his duty sheets and company newsletter saved on it.

He said that he was checking his duties for the following week and, as he was looking at his phone for a few minutes, reading the newsletter.

The company policy was that only internal literature could be read while on duty, while not specifying in what format (electronic in this case).

As said, he just got a warning which stayed on his file for 12 months.

Again, before you use this excuse, wait for other caggers advice; this is only a story

[renegadeimp]

Really not wise to advise the op lie to his employer.

[rebel11]

Initially he was warned not to do it again, end of the matter as far as he was concerned. Then out of the blue he was summoned to HO, it's now a disiplinary hearing. Sounds like he wasn't told that he was going to H/O for i.e. disiplinary.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/work_e/work_problems_at_work_e/dealing_with_disciplinary_action_and_dismissal_at_work.htm

 

Because, as others have tried to explain, you'd have to demonstrate that the difference in treatment was caused or motivated by your race or gender - not simply that you were treated differently from someone of a different race or gender. If you had previous "form" for, for the sake of argument, being a difficult employee or someone with a record of misdemeanor then perhaps that could explain why management took a less forgiving line: I imagine they have some discretion.

[steampowered]

I agree with the advice you have already received on discrimination. This may be discrimination in the casual sense of the word, but it is not discrimination in the legal sense of the word. There is nothing in your post which suggests to me that you could prove to a Tribunal that the reason for the disciplinary was BECAUSE of your race/gender/whatever.