I've Just Been Told I'm Sacked!

[GarfieldLeChat]

Do you ever read the ones saying not to use my real name on here?

wasn'taware it was your real name anyway it's edited now it's not like it was annoucned or anything that this was the reason for you user name change or that i was supposed to know...

 

[i_hate_beckham]

Another urbanite who will need to familiarise themselve with the game of Dole Lotto.

 

[Looby]

erm not universally my work still has the go out for liquid lunch culture.... it's not uncommon for most people here to be half cut ...

Same in my office (civil service), most of the managers can be found in the pub at lunchtime and me and my mate have been known to drink a bottle of wine at lunchtime. We don't get pissed but we are definately a bit squiffy.

 

[equationgirl]

I know it was stupid to say yes, but I was totally pissed and dont even really remeber it. having spoke to a colleague today- they said they overheard the conversation that drunken night from my supervisors end and they were being a bit manipulative. pretending they were doing me a favour by granting a day off I asked for at short notice, in return for me coming in that night. basically what they were saying is comein toonight or you can't have your day off. I needed this day off, for personal reasons.

What I should have said is sorry but i'm pissed and not fit to work. But my mind was not working properly at the time. But I've learned my lesson. if i'm out enjoying myself, I will not make it possible for my work to contact me. From now on, my days off are mine.

Just out of interest, what would have happened if you had said you couldn't go into work? Did they make any threats/implications of any kind? Sounds like blackmail to me, and the person who rang you obviously knew you were drunk from the phonecall, so it sounds a bit odd to me. I mean, if they could tell you weren't fit for work, why did they insist you came in, especially on a day off? Wasn't there anyone that could cover? Could they not have managed without the extra pair of hands?

I think they took advantage of your drunken state and good nature, which isn't fair.

 

[exosculate]

Yes, but if you're liable to be called back to work it amounts to the same thing.

You gone from TUC to CBI?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not without an appropriate increase in salary.

 

[Derian]

Zinedine seems to have his/her act together - clear for future, hope all goes well.

But this whole "see it from the employer perspective" e.g. :

Being drunk at work is universally held to be gross misconduct

And other examples...

Well, none of that stuff really helped an individual asking for advice - did it? We all make mistakes. We all need advice sometimes.

Past Caring - I don't know what your day job is, but the next time you disagree with me, please would you take it up on PM before posting something that could adversely affect someone's livelihood?

 

[past caring]

As regards the question of whether being drunk at work is held to be gross misconduct, yes, clearly there may be circumstances where it might be possible to win a case based upon the particular culture that pertains in an individual workplace. One might even win a case on the basis that Donna outlined earlier - effectively blackmailing a manager due to their previous behaviour.

But the notion that, in general terms, one might win at an ET simply on the basis that drunkeness is not specifically prohibited in a staff handbook is nonsensical - especially, as in this case, where the facts themselves are not in dispute. It no more needs to be included in a staff handbook than a prohibition on assault or theft. Here's what ACAS has to say;

Under sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, all employers have a general duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. If an employer knowingly allowed an employee under the influence of alcohol (or drugs) to continue working and this placed the employee or others at risk, the employer could be liable to charges. Under section 7 of the Act, employees are also required to take reasonable care of themselves and others who could be affected by what they do. They, too, could be liable to charge if their alcohol consumption (or drug-taking) put safety at risk.

In the transport industry, there is specific legislation in place to control the misuse of both alcohol and drugs. The Transport and Works Act 1992 makes it a criminal offence for certain workers to be unfit through drink and/or drugs while working on railways, tramways and other guided systems. The operators for whom such employees work would also be guilty of an offence unless they had shown 'all due diligence' in trying to prevent these offences being committed (see legislation concerning drugs for further discussion).

link

Past Caring - I don't know what your day job is, but the next time you disagree with me, please would you take it up on PM before posting something that could adversely affect someone's livelihood?

Said without a hint of irony.

My day job? I'm an advice worker. I'm also the shop-steward at my place of work. Before that I had years of either being on the Chapel committee or the actual FOC when I was in the print. I've succesfully represented at any number of discipliniary hearings, including several where the member of the shop had been charged with gross misconduct.

You going to be equally upfront as to what qualifies you to dish out innaccurate and misleading advice? PM you my arse.

 

[Derian]

As regards the question of whether being drunk at work is held to be gross misconduct, yes, clearly there may be circumstances where it might be possible to win a case based upon the particular culture that pertains in an individual workplace. One might even win a case on the basis that Donna outlined earlier - effectively blackmailing a manager due to their previous behaviour.

But the notion that, in general terms, one might win at an ET simply on the basis that drunkeness is not specifically prohibited in a staff handbook is nonsensical - especially, as in this case, where the facts themselves are not in dispute. It no more needs to be included in a staff handbook than a prohibition on assault or theft. Here's what ACAS has to say;


link



Said without a hint of irony.

My day job? I'm an advice worker. I'm also the shop-steward at my place of work. Before that I had years of either being on the Chapel committee or the actual FOC when I was in the print. I've succesfully represented at any number of discipliniary hearings, including several where the member of the shop had been charged with gross misconduct.

You going to be equally upfront as to what qualifies you to dish out innaccurate and misleading advice? PM you my arse.

My point is that this is an individual, asking for advice.

Giving the employer's perspective in this context is easy.

Advising an individual that has made a mistake is not quite that simple.

I advocated following a formal appeal process and identified certain issues that might help Zinedrine's argument (if s/he wished to pursue it). I did not suggest an ET claim in my post - I suggested a formal appeal.

I don't think that my advice was inaccurate or misleading. You obviously don't agree.

My day job is employment matters and disputes. I spent a few years in a union, but didn't aspire to shop-steward status. Nowadays I spend 1/2 my time advising small business owners, and the other 1/2 advising individuals.

Hey - what the hell. Carry on with the advice you're happy to give gained from experience of disciplinary hearings including gross misconduct.

 

[grangetownwhale]

Instant Dismissal! It's unfair!

Last week, I had a day off and met my mates for a pub lunch, which led on to the whole afternoon and evening in the pub. At 9pm my work phoned me to say that a colleague had been sent home sick and asked if I would be able to cover. I was so munted that I said yes. The problem was , as I was out of it, i did about 2 hours work then fell asleep in the staff room. My manager found out about this earlier today (obviously some prick has grassed up on me ) I have been sacked for gross misconduct!

Thing is my manager was really nice. She has to speak to the directors in the morning and she is gonna defend me and try and get me to stay on. But I hate this job (the pay is extremely shit, not much above minimum wage) and was looking to leave. maybe this will give me the kick up the arse I need. But I have responsibilities- I need to be earning!

I havnt used an agency for years, does anyone know if there is lots of temp jobs out there at the mo? What agencies are begging for people on their books?

Your help and advice would be greatly appreciated!

Fuck em..

Your obviously clever enough to get a better job.
Good luck

GTW

 

[past caring]

Derian - "Employment matters and disputes" is not a job - that's simply a subject. What kind of an organisation do you work for and what is your role within it? What qualifies you to give advice in this area?

I'm not simply giving the employer's perspective. What I am doing is asking the hard questions that the other side is certain to ask in any formal discipliniary or ET case. Any responsible and competent representative needs to assess the strengths of the other side's case and potential weaknesses in their own - it's called being prepared.

See, aside from the union stuff, what I do as a job is nothing but representation, albeit at Social Security Tribunals (benefit appeals) and very similar "skills" in regard to representation apply. There's no getting around the fact that a failure to assess the strengths of the other side's case is a recipe for disaster.

And I'm sorry, but whilst you may not have suggested making an application to an ET as a first step, your post certainly did suggest that it's a real possibility;

You should probably appeal anyway - try and get it mitigated to reinstatement on a final written warning. Put it in writing within the timescale given (you should be receiving a letter shortly detailing the reason for your dismissal and how to appeal).

If you have one year's service and a previously clear disciplinary record, you may be able to convince your employer that it was a once-off incident and won't happen again. Lots of remorse, mitigating circumstances and showing that you know how serious the implications were, will help with this approach. A formal appeal will also have the advantage of highlighting to your employer that you are taking it seriously, and that you may make a claim in the Employment Tribunal if the appeal fails. If your manager is supportive she may influence whoever hears the appeal - although I'm guessing that she was the person that dismissed you in the first place?

Check the handbook/disciplinary policy to see whether being drunk on duty actually does constitute a gross misconduct offence. Your employer does not have to list everything, but if they haven't listed it, it's another angle to try. Also check to see whether they have dismissed according to the procedure, any slip up will add to your grounds for appealing - the most obvious that springs to my mind from the OP is that it is usual to give you adequate notice of a disciplinary hearing. Plus you should have had a letter before the hearing to explain why the hearing was being called and the basis for them contemplating disciplinary action (mandatory under the new legislation that came into effect last year). Also, try and find out what they have done on previous occasions with other members of staff, although that might be a bit tricky to establish.

Other factors in your favour against being sacked for a first offence are: (1) doesn't appear to be a health and safety risk - presuming that the call centre is in a low risk office type environment, most are (2) no dishonesty/integrity issues. If you are young, that also helps with the 'lack of judgment' defence (not making any judgments here!)

If you have less than one year's service, an appeal may not work because your employer would not be unduly concerned about an Employment Tribunal claim. Also if you have been disciplined in the past for misconduct, you will find it harder to convince them.

Worth pursuing though. Lizzieloo's point about a reference is a good one - the only drawback is that your manager probably won't be there forever. If possible you really don't want the official record showing that you were dismissed for gross misconduct.

Good luck.

I've highlighted the relevant sections. The first suggests that the threat of an ET may, in some way, be real. The second reinforces the point by suggesting, yet again, that should Zenidan have more than a year's service the prospect of an ET is something the employer will have to give serious consideration to. Zenidan works in a call-centre. Even if there's no in-house HR department that's up to speed on these matters, they'll certainly have access to qualified legal advice. And any misapprehension on the part of the employer that an ET is a possibility will dissipate the moment they avail themselves of that advice.

 

[The Pious Pawn]

Instant Dismissal! It's unfair!

Last week, I had a day off and met my mates for a pub lunch, which led on to the whole afternoon and evening in the pub. At 9pm my work phoned me to say that a colleague had been sent home sick and asked if I would be able to cover. I was so munted that I said yes. The problem was , as I was out of it, i did about 2 hours work then fell asleep in the staff room. My manager found out about this earlier today (obviously some prick has grassed up on me ) I have been sacked for gross misconduct!

Thing is my manager was really nice. She has to speak to the directors in the morning and she is gonna defend me and try and get me to stay on. But I hate this job (the pay is extremely shit, not much above minimum wage) and was looking to leave. maybe this will give me the kick up the arse I need. But I have responsibilities- I need to be earning!

I havnt used an agency for years, does anyone know if there is lots of temp jobs out there at the mo? What agencies are begging for people on their books?

Your help and advice would be greatly appreciated!

agencys are arse holes id steer away from them if possible mate , i did some work for one few weeks back still not been payed ! they dont give a fuck ! my line of work a lot of work comes in the way of agencys ! well not for me anymore id rather be skint than work for them . go knockin on doors do odd jobs for people charge £10 a hour you will get work easy enough trust me

 

[HMS Habbakuk]

agencys are arse holes id steer away from them if possible mate , i did some work for one few weeks back still not been payed ! they dont give a fuck ! my line of work a lot of work comes in the way of agencys ! well not for me anymore id rather be skint than work for them . go knockin on doors do odd jobs for people charge £10 a hour you will get work easy enough trust me

Office agencies are usually alright, and there's a lot of them in London. Would be worth a try to get you started when you move.

Try gumtree.com ads for call centre work.

 

[Soul On Ice]

Derian - "Employment matters and disputes" is not a job - that's simply a subject. What kind of an organisation do you work for and what is your role within it? What qualifies you to give advice in this area?

I'm not simply giving the employer's perspective. What I am doing is asking the hard questions that the other side is certain to ask in any formal discipliniary or ET case. Any responsible and competent representative needs to assess the strengths of the other side's case and potential weaknesses in their own - it's called being prepared.

See, aside from the union stuff, what I do as a job is nothing but representation, albeit at Social Security Tribunals (benefit appeals) and very similar "skills" in regard to representation apply. There's no getting around the fact that a failure to assess the strengths of the other side's case is a recipe for disaster.

And I'm sorry, but whilst you may not have suggested making an application to an ET as a first step, your post certainly did suggest that it's a real possibility;


I've highlighted the relevant sections. The first suggests that the threat of an ET may, in some way, be real. The second reinforces the point by suggesting, yet again, that should Zenidan have more than a year's service the prospect of an ET is something the employer will have to give serious consideration to. Zenidan works in a call-centre. Even if there's no in-house HR department that's up to speed on these matters, they'll certainly have access to qualified legal advice. And any misapprehension on the part of the employer that an ET is a possibility will dissipate the moment they avail themselves of that advice.

As to the "dispute" between Derian and past caring I have a few comments. Just to be straight here's my qualifications to comment

1. I am not a trade union rep but a Regional Officer for a large trade union and have many years experience.
2. I have represented at many levels up to and including ETs.
3. I regularly give advice on employment law matters and am responsible for deciding whether my union will support an ET case.
4. To be honest and without blowing my own trumpet (but I will ), I am generally regarded by my colleagues as someone whose knowledge on employment law is better than most. I know this to be the case as I am one of the 2/3 people that is usually approached by colleagues for a second opinion. Ooooh, get me

Having briefly read the comments by Derian and past caring I would say the following about their qualifications:
- I have seen Derian's comments on previous matters including TUPE (which is not a straightforward piece of legislation) and she seems pretty knowledgeable to me - and certainly is NOT a "barrack room lawyer" as past caring has suggested.
- past caring clearly is no slouch either when it comes to knowledge of employment matters. Shop steward, on the chapel committee representing at internal hearings - all good stuff. I have experience of many union reps and I would say that there are some with good knowledge on employment law matters and past caring is clearly one of them. But I would add that being a even the best lay rep such as past caring will have inevitable limits to their knowledge as they are not dealing with such matters day to day

So where does this leave us. I've said both of them seem to know what they are talking about but they appear to have given contradictory advice.

1. The first and most important thing to remember is that most, if not all advice is OPINION. I have discussed cases with colleagues and the union's solicitors. The best thing that one of the solicitors said to me when I first started is that all you can do is give your opinion on a case - ultimately the ET decides.

2. Second thing is that in my view the advice given by both Derian and past caring are two sides of the same coin and not actually that different. My view is that the spat starts with past caring getting stroppy at advice from a "barrack room lawyer." And to be fair I get pretty stroppy at people giving advice on things they no nothing about. I constantly have to advise members on their rights who have a "friend who is a solicitor" who has told them they have a good case. This "friend" unusually is one of the following:
- someone who once did a course which had some law in it
- someone doing or has done a law degree
- someone who works in a solicitors but is not a solicitor
- a solicitor who does general legal work, jack (or jill) of all trade but master of none. If you want specialist advice you see a specialist. If you have a dickie heart you see a cardiologist not a proctologist.
- a solicitor who is just plain crap
That said I reckon past caring was a bit too free and easy with the criticism.

To be honest both bits of advice are about right - it's just that they are different opinions with a slightly different slant. I shall refrain from adding my view other than to say
1. If you are unhappy with the decsion to dismiss you should use your internal right to appeal. It's always worth a go and I have represetned in similar (tho not identical cases) and had some success.
2. You manager can not give you a "good" reference. She must give an honest reference otherwise she could be help liable for it. If she fails to include something so important as the fact that you were dismissed for gross misconduct then I wouldn't fancy her chances if it ended up in court. If she uses company headed paper, then the company would probably be held liable and also be sued. The company could then quite easily dismiss her.
3. past caring says "Moreover, Zenidane would then have on his record the fact that he'd brought an ET - employers can and do ask referees whether prospective employees have taken out grievances or ETs." Not sure this is relevant or even helpful. I have given references for many members who have been dismissed, where I've said the union is supporting the ET case and clearly any reference from their previous employer will be crap so prospective employers should ignore these crap references. I have had 4 members who have used such references and gone on to get a new job.
4. Oh yeah, my last bit of advice to all you out there is JOIN A BLOODY UNION. Getting advice off a U75 board, even from people as esteemed as me or others is no substitute from getting proper face to face advice an representation who can see all the policies and procedures.

 

[Throbbing Angel]

I work in a call centre. But I have a degree in politics- this was only meant to be a stop gap. My manger has said that she will gve me a good reference.

in that case, run and get a better job [better for you that is] seems like the gods have made decisions on your behalf, and, err, don't go to work pissed [you crazy kids]

 

[Pie 1]

1. Don't drink on the job.
2. Join a trade union.

Or

1. Join a trade union.
2. Drink on the job.

 

[quamp1]

Look on the bright side. At least your employer had reason to fire you.
Here in the USA, any white male under the age of 40 can be fired without reason.
In some states, they have what are called "at will" employment laws. They allow the employer to fire a person without reason.
I was recently given the sack for no reason at my job.

 

[Soul On Ice]

Look on the bright side. At least your employer had reason to fire you.
Here in the USA, any white male under the age of 40 can be fired without reason.
In some states, they have what are called "at will" employment laws. They allow the employer to fire a person without reason.
I was recently given the sack for no reason at my job.

Oh the joys of a "flexible labour market"