Too Harsh???

It sounds like they have already sacked at least one other person for doing the same thing and therefore they feel they can't treat her any differently. Do you know if this person was an office employee like the young woman? A lot of people are blaming the company, assuming she wasn't informed, but it sounds like this was not the case. However is it possible that she didn't receive enough health and safety information as an office employee? When I worked for an insurance company we had to do CBTs every year to make sure we were up to date with H&S - does your company do this? Would it be possible to find out if she has had sufficient training and information? At the end of the day I don't think that her trying to be helpful is mitigating circumstances for gross misconduct, as you don't want to encourage people to cut corners when it comes to safety.

Hi Gd1943 thanks for your reply. I have been googling this and although the woman didn't have the qualifying work period as the dismissal was over a health and safety issue I believe she may be able to contest this www.landaulaw.co.uk/when-can-there-be-automatic-unfair-dismissal/
I may be totally wrong of course

I don't think this was too harsh. Let me explain.

Not only was it contrary to policy, but if she had been injured, it would have become a Workers Compensation Board issue (this is what we call it in Canada; not sure what the term is in the UK but I would imagine you have a similar organization; it handles cases of workplace injury and determines what treatment is appropriate and if the employee will need compensation, modified duties, etc.). If she had been seriously injured the company could have had some degree of liability for her injuries. That's a HUGE legal risk for them to take.

She chose not to follow policy. She put herself in a potentially VERY dangerous situation. That has consequences.

There was a dangerous area. The employee should not have gone into it as an accident could have been caused.
The other details are irrelevant, even the one about poor communication, as none of them show this to be any sort of emergency which would compel the employee to do what she did.

Did the company policy and procedures state that her actions were grounds for summary dismissal? If not and the proper disciplinary process had not been followed i.e. Verbal. Written warnings etc. Then the company could be liablento an ET on the grounds of constructive dismissal and that actually a final written warning would have sufficed. There would have been every probability that the girl would never do this action again and her work colleagues would understand the seriousness of the situation in the fact that she had been given a final written warning.

Hi everybody, I will try to respond as best I can in this post to some of the points raised in the above posts.

In regard to the dismissed employee having sufficient safety awareness and training, then as an employee in the main administration office, she would have received both written and actual training regarding situation awareness and the operation of equipment that she regularly used in her daily duties. Regarding the loading dock and warehouse, she would have received and signed for all the written safety instructions that are given to those that are fully employed working in those areas, but not the actual on the job training that those persons receive. That would include manual handling training, safe operation of pallet trucks, and roll cages etc.

Along with the above, all employees are advised of the risk assessments that have been carried out pertaining to their employment and where those documents can be viewed and challenged if felt necessary. All the above information is given to new employees which they are required to sign to say they have received, and those documents are updated following each safety audit or any H&S incident if necessary.

Safety training is also provided for any new equipment that comes into service on the site or change in operational procedures for those that will be involved in using that equipment or changed procedures.

As has been stated, the employer has on a number of previous occasions dismissed employees for infringement of the safety regime at the distribution centre especially when those infringements have involved the operation of forklift trucks or other powered mechanical lifting equipment.

Regarding whether the employee may have any claim against the company under automatic unfair dismissal legislation, then I am certainly no deep employment law expert. However during all three stages of her disciplinary process (the initial interview, the full disciplinary hearing, or the appeal hearing) the employee never once claimed that she was unaware of the site H&S regulations that she transgressed against.

I believe the company gave her every opportunity to dismiss or mitigate the allegations made against her throughout those hearings. However, both the employee and her formal companion relied on the fact that she carried out what she did to facilitate the smooth operation of the complex and company which was not the best defence in her situation.

The company did bring in for the appeal hearing a Reginal Director which was undoubtedly brought about by the letters of support submitted by her friends and colleagues at the site. That stated, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing and after much deliberation that director summed up the proceedings by stating the employee undoubtedly did try to help the smooth running of the complex and company. However, those actions could not be taken as mitigation when placed against the blatant disregard of the site Health and Safety regulations which she engaged in.

With that, everybody's heart in the room sank, but it had seemed almost inevitable throughout the latter part of the hearing.

I would still want to know if the company's disciplinary policies and procedures state that entering the warehouse without due regard to the company H&S policies would incur summary dismissal.

If she had received the required training and information and was then injured by ignoring H&S policy then i would imagine that providing the company had recorded the training in her personnel file then the liability would likely have been hers.

One can understand summary dismissal for misuse of handling equipment or forklifts, but whilst not knowing the full details if the case find it concerning to understand why final written warning was not used.
Hopefully the lady will seek advice if she considers her dismissal unfair.

I didn't think a company could dismiss an employee for his or her first breach of company policy, except in the case of gross misconduct. I would not have thought what she did constituted "gross misconduct" but, taking into account the seriousness of the issue, I could understand a final written warning being given.

I can understand why there are such strict health and safety policies but surely a company should examine the worker's record and the circumstances leading to a breach of the rules and use some discretion?

I wonder if a Tribunal would think her dismissal unreasonable?

What a terrible shame. It seems very unfair.

Companies can and do have actions that warrant instant dismissal. Staff are made aware of them and they are usually, health and safety issues, theft of goods or intellectual property or similar.

Some years ago my daughter was a union rep and provided support for a colleague who had been tempted to try and sell on ebay promotional ware given to winners in a televisiongame show. The items were coveted and there were very strict rules about their issue. The man concerned knew that even taking the items out of the studio could be a dismissable offence and selling them certainly was.

He was suspended from the moment the offence was discovered and went all the way through the company's appeal process, but was sacked, even though that was his first and only breach of company rules.

I do think there is a diference between a criminal act and a dismissal on health and safety grounds where had she had better advice and presented a better defence she might well have been exonerated.

I believe that there was an element in this matter that may well have played a leading aspect in the situation this employee has found herself in. Throughout the investigation and hearings, it seemed very apparent to those of us involved that there was a very poor working relationship between the loading dock office staff and the staff of the main administration office at this very large distribution centre.

As our staff have been discussing, the dock office staff are clothed in the supplied company protective uniforms and reflective jackets, while the main admin office staff wear their own clothing and only put reflective jackets on if they go down to the warehousing area. That some feel may have created a trend of thought almost in the upstairs/downstairs category or "blue collar v white collar" thinking and may well have brought about the animosity and poor communication between the two sections.

In her initial statement and throughout the hearings the employee continuously advised that it was near the end her shift that the query came about. In that, despite being short on time, the sole reason for her taking matters into her own hands and going down to the warehouse area was because she felt the loading dock office would "keep her hanging about in regard to resolving the query." Of course in doing that she carried out the breach of the H&S regulations that she did.

However, if anyone thinks on the matter, in confirming that the product stockholding was correct and in its right place on the racking, the employee prevented confusion among the staff employed on the daily picking operation which was due to begin one and a half hours later. Had that query had not been corrected it would have caused delays to the loading of vehicles and in that, place pressure on the loading dock office. In short, her actions had greatly helped the dock office and yet it was the supervisor in that office who reported her to the higher management in the company, bringing about full disciplinary action.

I feel that many supervisors having knowledge of the above situation would have called the employee into his office and "gave her the biggest verbal rollocking of her life" and told her that should she do anything like it again, her feet would not touch the floor as she went out the door. At that many would have left the matter.

However, in this situation the above did not happen, perhaps for covert reasons some feel?

I think there is also always in most organisations a culture of pass the blame on if you can.So that if something does go wrong you have covered your own back. It does sometimes mean that the person being disciplined is not actually the problem. As there have been other cases of dismissals in this company perhaps they are just treating the disease and not the cause. A pity she didn't have better advice, I suppose join a Union is one of the lessons to be learned.

The more your tell of the story, Grandad43, the more I feel this young woman has been poorly treated. I feel so sorry for her to have had to face that tribunal without an expert at her side. That alone seems most unfair.

Not sure ‘the biggest verbal rollicking of her life’ and threats of ‘feet not touching the ground’ are allowed these days although they were common enough when I started work!

In today’s working world of safe spaces etc supervisors would be the ones to lose their jobs and we’d now be posting on that!

From what you have said it does seem like the them vs us climate had some bearing on the actions of those involved. The person who reported wanted to make a point. Those investigating wanted to make a point that they treated everyone the same, even if it is unfair. Sounds like a poorly run place when employees who are doing their best are sacked. What do you do when someone steals? Or threatens someone? If you take the ultimate sanction when someone has the companies interests at heart where do you go from here? There were other ways that the company could have had a better outcome - for the staff as well as the organisation. This could have been solved by issuing a letter, and retraining.

I am getting very uncomfortable with this thread. About every page the OP lets out a bit more information, then a bit more. I am beginning to get the feeling we are being led on and led on, as if he is trying to get us to say something in particular and we haven't yet said it.

I would have thought any employee the '"biggest verbal rollicking of her life" and threatened that her feet would not touch the ground on her way out of the door would have grounds for constructive dismissal.
There are procedures to follow regarding warnings and it is not so easy to 'sack' someone these days.

I am not sure what use a legal secretary would be - surely this young woman was entitled to better representation?
It's all rather odd.

you could be right, M0nica.

M0nica, if you check back through this thread, you will see that the Legal Secretary was at the appeal hearing as part of the representation from our company. In that, the Legal Secretary was in no way there to represent the employee undergoing the disciplinary action against her. A work colleague assisted her in what is known as the Formal Companion at both disciplinary hearings.

My company was there in an advisory role to the employer being that we set up the overall safety regime at the distribution centre.

Hope that makes things clearer.

What a quandary *Grandad.

She was a good and conscientious worker who went out of her way to ensure a procedure could go ahead.

However, as others have said, if there are safety rules to follow in the other working environment and she ignored them, she could have put other employees and the firm itself at risk. There was no incident, but if there had been, her behaviour would have been at the centre of a massie enquiry.

I do feel very sorry for her. She's been fired for being a 'bad' employee when in fact she did what she did to aid the smooth running of the firm. Going above and beyond the call of duty is usually an admirable quality.

It would have been good if her employers had used their discretion in her case, but I appreciate their doing that would have opened yet another can of worms and set a precedent. Poor woman.

Don't see why it's "odd". I think it's quite an interesting thread about employment and health and safety legislation.

Carolina55 Quote [Not sure ‘the biggest verbal rollicking of her life’ and threats of ‘feet not touching the ground’ are allowed these days ] End Quote.

You are undoubtedly correct in your above comment Carolina55. My post in stating that was Just wishful thinking on my part I feel.

As an older, experienced employee, I'd have given / left a message for a colleague to check this or pass it on to the warehouse or whatever was appropriate, rather than put myself in the way of danger or (as happened) trouble.

Clearly, the young woman was not experienced enough to think in this way and so made the mistake.

Grandad, someone asked earlier, and I didn't see it answered, if the woman's training took place at the start of her 18 months and never again? Or was it refreshed?

FarNorth Quote [someone asked earlier, and I didn't see it answered, if the woman's training took place at the start of her 18 months and never again? Or was it refreshed? ] End Quote.

As an employee in the Administration office, her training would have been updated especially when new equipment or procedures were introduced.

With regard to the warehouse and loading dock areas, the employee would have received all the written safety instructions those employed on jobs in that area receive, but not the on the job practical training in the safe use of pallet trucks, roll cages and dock levellers etc.

All employees who are not directly employed in the warehouse, product assembly areas or directly on the loading dock are under strict instruction to report to the loading dock office supervisor for instructions before proceeding into the above areas, and there is also strong signage to that effect. There is also electric signs that are switched on in the racking/picking areas instructing persons not to enter when the forklifts are operating in the aisles

Those signs are similar to the "no entry" signs you see on roads.

Just to update those on this forum that posted sympathy and concern for the young women who was dismissed from her employment for the H&S infringement.

The Legal Secretary from our company that attended the appeal hearing with me has remained in touch with her, and there has been some very positive developments in that direction.

The dismissed employee registered with an employment agency over the weekend and they have found her temporary work in similar employment that she held formerly (that being system stock control) in a competitors distribution centre. She is due to begin work tomorrow replacing someone who is on what will be in all probability medium term length sick leave. So, she is very relieved and much happier today.

We have also received communication from her former employer requesting our company to carry out what is known as a "root cause investigation" into what brought this young employee to enter into the H&S transgression that she did. In that, we will be able to look into the very apparent poor communication between the loading dock office and the main administration office at the distribution centre.

We are very busy at the moment, but we do hope to get two of our assignment personnel into the site at the weekend being the site operates twenty-four hours per day and seven days a week. I do not believe that whatever the outcome of that investigation the young women's employment will be restored to her, but if it prevents someone else falling foul of the safety regime at the site that would be a bonus for the investigation. If it also brought forward others culpable in that poor communication at the centre, then that would be an even larger bonus to end this sorry matter.

As stated our Legal secretary who accompanied me to the appeal hearing contacted the dismissed young woman once again today. That brought forward the news of her new employment. This single young parent stated that if she has learned anything out of this matter, it is that she is determined to better herself further into the future. She stated that she would wish to become qualified as a Legal Secretary as similar to our employee.

Well, in the above, she will have a long way to go to gain those qualifications. However, after becoming a single parent at such a young age, and then out of that situation demonstrating a fierce determination to gain and retain independence for herself and her young daughter, then if anyone can get the above qualifications i am sure this young women will do so.

Many of us who have got to know her through this sorry matter feel that the young lady who is her daughter will have a mother who she will be thoroughly proud of throughout her entire life.

That's good news all round, more than one good outcome.