Too Harsh???

I don’t know enough about this kind of tribunal but, are they usually reported in the press? The level of personal insider detail in the OP and subsequent comments seemed to expose the young woman who lost her job.
I recognise the importance of health and safety in the workplace. She made an error of judgement with the best of intentions. Sacking seems harsh unless she’d a record of poor judgrments

The unhappiest time of my working life was in a management role. I would have been useless in a situation like this. How much pay is she due? Enough for her to manage until she finds a new job ? But often you have to say why you left your last job - sacked for gross misconduct doesn’t look good. Her ex employers might be able to help on the informal grapevine but if she can’t find a job she’ll be sanctioned when she claims. As for setting a precedent and other experience employees claiming the circumstances would have to be very similar for that to work. Still it’s all too late now - hope she doesn’t end up homeless.

Ex not experience

There is no point in having Health and Safety Regulations if someone is going to flout them even 'in the best interests of the company ' - in her opinion anyway.

Dismissal does seem rather harsh and perhaps a warning should have been given. However, I have heard of accidents occurring with fork lift trucks and, had this happened to her, who would be to blame? The fork lift truck driver could not be blamed but this could devastate him/her if she had been injured - or worse.

Iam64, it was not an industrial tribunal. It was an internal company disciplinary procedure carried out under current employment legislation.

The person involved will not be able to go forward to an industrial tribunal as she does not have two years continuous employment with the company which is required under the above legislation.

She only has eighteen months of employment with this company.

There are many instances of people being killed in fork lift truck accidents - if that had happened her child would be motherless.

Did she have adequate training in H&S?

Callistemon, her training was one of the debates in what the punishment should be. Those employed in the warehouse are given both written and "actual on the job training" in the safety regime.

The office staff are only given the written instructions of the safety regime for the warehouse and picking areas, and she had signed to say she had received that.

The above is why all who are not employed permanently in those areas are instructed to report to the loading dock office supervisor before proceeding into the warehouse.

In her hurry, that she did not do.

It was fortuitous that the forklift truck driver saw her and perhaps she should have had a formal written warning.

It was a very foolish and dangerous thing to do.

What a sad tale. I have every sympathy with the woman in question, but really the company had to abide by the rules for the sake of equality and consistency. Is there any reason why the company could not re-hire her in a different role on a new contract? That would be an outcome that would recognise the extra-ordinary circumstances surrounding her actions.

Way too harsh. There are plenty of other disciplinary options that the company could have taken. Removing someone's livelihood is a last resort, not first. A written warning would have sufficed. I would not think that this can be construed as gross misconduct - eg. theft, physical violence etc. This may have been a health and safety violation but it was not wanton or reckless. I think she should take then to an Employment Tribunal. I suspect she will win too.

Sorry missed the bit about the length of her employment. I hope those on the panel can sleep at night.

Far too harsh!
A warning not to do it again, followed by a thank you for trying to help the company would be my choice!

In this case the employee would have been damned if she didn't and was damned when she did. Unfair dismissal.

So if this was an internal disciplinary panel, that raises my question about confidentiality to another level. I'm not seeking to be picky about the OP because this is a serious issue but I'm not sure whether confidentiality or even just simple respect for others, would mean its wrong to share this level of information on a public forum.

The idea that the company would be able to give a good reference does not stack. The employer is saying that they have behaved so badly that it has warranted instant dismissal, it's going to be very difficult to get a new job. I really fail to understand how they came to that conclusion, based on what had been posted.

Iam64, with reference to your above post, no one on this forum is aware of this persons name, the name of the company she worked for, the names of those persons taking the hearings, my name or the name of my company as the safety advisory body at those hearings.

Therefore Iam64, please inform me where the breach in confidentiality is in the above.

Grandad - I simply feel uncomfortable that we are discussing a person without their consent, or the consent of any of the panel who made the decision. There is an issue to discuss but couldn’t it have been raised without giving personal information such as the woman being distressed, having a young child etc. Imagine if this was my daughter we were discussing, without her knowledge or consent
I appreciate the nature of my work probably sensitised, you may argue, oversensitised me to issues of confidentiality. So in answer to your quedtion, I don’t ‘identify where the breach of confidentiality is in the above”. I simply repeat I think this important issue could have been raised without it being linked to a real woman who has lost her job in circs that I’m not convinced am warranted that and mean she will struggle to find employment. Nit everyone needs personal stories in order to consider whether a course of action is fair

Gd1943 the first thing I would have questioned would be the availibility of the loading dock office supervisor. If it had been possible for her to contact them either by phone or walkie talkie it would have saved her time or even made her visit completely unnecessary. It also seems unsafe that anyone should be able to enter the loading area unobserved, after all if there is a regulation about contacting someone surely that person should be instantly visible.
So I think you will gather that I do not agree with her dismissal. In fact I think she should challenge the decision on the grounds that proper communication and safety were not in place.
(But I know nowt about it really so could be completely wrong!)

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Iam64, I am aware that this wonderful young women and mother who has been sacked from her employment has posted on social media herself in regard to what has happened to her.

I am not sure where she has posted that or what she has stated, but I felt to state her case on this unique forum would bring different views on the matter.

I do understand your concerns though Iam64. So, many thanks for expressing them.

Lemon, I agree with you. I think sacking the young woman was really too harsh. I think a final written warning would have been sufficient.

I have no knowledge of such matters but a couple of things strike me. One is that the woman had signed a copy of the regulations about the warehouse. Was that during her initial induction, 18 months previously? Had there been regular reminders of the rules since then, to reinforce the point? I know the rules to not enter a warehouse would seem obvious but people are only human.

Another point is that other employees have been dismissed for similar infringements. I wonder that if this infringement has occurred a number of times, maybe the company hasn't looked into the possibility that their safety procedures are inadequate and they need tightening up and in fact she has inadvertently pointed out a loophole in their operations.

It's hard not to feel sorry for the woman and her family, whether dismissal is justified or not.

"I wonder that if this infringement has occurred a number of times, maybe the company hasn't looked into the possibility that their safety procedures are inadequate and they need tightening up and in fact she has inadvertently pointed out a loophole in their operations."

SueDonim - that is a distinct possibility and perhaps they have sacked this young woman to cover themselves and their inadequacies. Should it be possible for a staff member to enter a dangerous area where she does not normally work without any checks being made.

I think a written warning and retraining may have been the best course of action, not dismissal.
The company are at fault too.

It seems to me that there is probably a lot of blame being heaped upon this young woman and thet a lot of people may have used her as a way of covering themselves. The reason why she had to leave at 2.30pm is largely irrelevant apart from the fact that it can and probably has been used to make it appear that she acted in haste. Possibly the dock office supervisor was missing for some time and in blaming her covered his own back. Gd1943 As your company were already involved with the organisation and had set up the safety training etc wouldn't it have been more ethical and perhaps better for the employee if someone had been brought in who was a disinterested observer.I don't think that your company is necessarily biased just that a new eye sometimes gives a different perspective and notices things that have just been accepted and become habits.

Hi Trisher, I believe the point you make in your post @ 12:37pm today (06/04/19) is highly valid. My company was present at both hearings in an advisory capacity to the employer and in that had no official obligation or responsibility of representation to the employee. However, under current employment legislation, an employee is allowed what is known as a "formal companion" who can accompany any person attending a grievance or disciplinary hearing which can be a trade union representative or any person employed in the workplace.

Unfortunately, the employee was not a member of any trade union, so a workplace friend accompanied her to both hearings, but her lack of training and experience most definitely showed through when speaking in support of the employee's case.

In that, I firmly believe that a full-time trade union organiser or branch officer would have made much more of the poor communications and working relationship that seems to exist between the loading bank dock office and the main administration office at the site. That long-standing poor communication was the sole reason the employee went down to the warehouse herself to check if the product under question was actually in the racking and in the place it should be.

However, that factor was not raised in the way it should have been by the employee as her and her companion consistently placed emphasis on the fact that she was only trying to "help the company" in carrying out what she did. That was without doubt not the best defence of her situation in the opinion of all who attended both hearings.

As I stated in an earlier post, I took along one of our Legal Secretaries to the appeal hearing in the hope that anything stated by her may have found some residence in an industrial court (tribunal) ruling at any time in the past. In that, we were, in reality, trying to find holes in our own safety regime at the site in an attempt to help her. However, nothing was ever stated by her or her companion at that hearing that made such research necessary.

A few of us have been into our office working this morning (Saturday) as we are still very busy at present with extra Brexit related work we have taken on. That said, the situation this young single parent has found herself in is still very much a talking point whenever we make ourselves a few spare minutes. It has touched the hearts of everyone it seems, but what (if anything) can be done remains to be seen. However, a few suggestions are being made.