Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Living with Diabetes
Jobs and Employment
hypo at work - told to get back to work by boss
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TokSik" data-source="post: 320597" data-attributes="member: 39822"><p>Misconduct itself is only dismissable as a 3rd offence - i.e. after having committed the first misconduct, you get a "official" (notarised) verbal warning; the 2nd must be a further misconduct within a 6 month time frame following the 1st misconduct, and that must be dealt with by way of a written warning, and then a 3rd misconduct within a following 6 month time frame, becomes dismissable. However, gross misconduct is definitely an instantly suspendable offence followed by dismissal after an enquiry and a disciplinary hearing. Misconduct is not defined in law but tribunals have found the following to be fair reasons for dismissal:- </p><p></p><p>a) timekeeping and absenteeism</p><p>b) refusal to obey an instruction or refusing to cooperate, i.e. refusing to do different work or to wear particular clothing or uniform</p><p>c) insolence or rudeness, including use of bad language</p><p>d) carelessness</p><p>e) criminal activity at work or outside work, for example, theft</p><p>f) fighting and violence at work</p><p>g) drinking or using drugs during working hours</p><p>h) breach of safety rules.</p><p></p><p>The main difference between dismissal for gross misconduct and other forms of misconduct dismissal, is that the employer dismissing for gross misconduct does not need to give the employee notice of the dismissal. Otherwise, the rules about whether the reason for dismissing is a fair one and whether dismissing the employee in those circumstances was a reasonable thing to do are the same as for all other misconduct dismissals.</p><p></p><p>An investigatory meeting should be conducted by a management representative and should be confined to establishing the facts of the case. It is important that disciplinary action is not considered at an investigatory meeting. If it becomes apparent that formal disciplinary action may be needed then this should be dealt with at a formal meeting at which the employee will have the Statutory right to be accompanied.</p><p></p><p>There have been a number of cases that comment on the standard expected of the employer when investigating disciplinary matters. This is important as failures in any investigation may form the main argument that a dismissal is unfair. The Court of Appeal held that the 'range of reasonable responses test' applies to investigations as much as it does to other aspects of the fairness of the dismissal. This means that there is no set standard of investigation expected and that so long as the employer has acted in a way a reasonable employer could have done it will be accepted as fair by a tribunal. </p><p></p><p>The Court of Appeal emphasised that the purpose of an investigation in employment disciplinary proceedings is not to establish guilt in the same way as in a court. The purpose of the investigation is to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief the employer has about the conduct in question. A reasonable investigation will require the employer to take account of explanations put forward by the employee and to try to establish whether they are likely explanations. If the explanation is unlikely, an employer may be acting reasonably in refusing to spend time and resources on further investigation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TokSik, post: 320597, member: 39822"] Misconduct itself is only dismissable as a 3rd offence - i.e. after having committed the first misconduct, you get a "official" (notarised) verbal warning; the 2nd must be a further misconduct within a 6 month time frame following the 1st misconduct, and that must be dealt with by way of a written warning, and then a 3rd misconduct within a following 6 month time frame, becomes dismissable. However, gross misconduct is definitely an instantly suspendable offence followed by dismissal after an enquiry and a disciplinary hearing. Misconduct is not defined in law but tribunals have found the following to be fair reasons for dismissal:- a) timekeeping and absenteeism b) refusal to obey an instruction or refusing to cooperate, i.e. refusing to do different work or to wear particular clothing or uniform c) insolence or rudeness, including use of bad language d) carelessness e) criminal activity at work or outside work, for example, theft f) fighting and violence at work g) drinking or using drugs during working hours h) breach of safety rules. The main difference between dismissal for gross misconduct and other forms of misconduct dismissal, is that the employer dismissing for gross misconduct does not need to give the employee notice of the dismissal. Otherwise, the rules about whether the reason for dismissing is a fair one and whether dismissing the employee in those circumstances was a reasonable thing to do are the same as for all other misconduct dismissals. An investigatory meeting should be conducted by a management representative and should be confined to establishing the facts of the case. It is important that disciplinary action is not considered at an investigatory meeting. If it becomes apparent that formal disciplinary action may be needed then this should be dealt with at a formal meeting at which the employee will have the Statutory right to be accompanied. There have been a number of cases that comment on the standard expected of the employer when investigating disciplinary matters. This is important as failures in any investigation may form the main argument that a dismissal is unfair. The Court of Appeal held that the 'range of reasonable responses test' applies to investigations as much as it does to other aspects of the fairness of the dismissal. This means that there is no set standard of investigation expected and that so long as the employer has acted in a way a reasonable employer could have done it will be accepted as fair by a tribunal. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the purpose of an investigation in employment disciplinary proceedings is not to establish guilt in the same way as in a court. The purpose of the investigation is to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief the employer has about the conduct in question. A reasonable investigation will require the employer to take account of explanations put forward by the employee and to try to establish whether they are likely explanations. If the explanation is unlikely, an employer may be acting reasonably in refusing to spend time and resources on further investigation. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Living with Diabetes
Jobs and Employment
hypo at work - told to get back to work by boss
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…