Too Harsh???

trisher Quote [ Thanks for the update Gd1943. I wonder if the company realise what a valuable employee they have lost?] End quote

Trisher i believe her former employers were very aware of what a valuable employee they were losing even as the act of dismissing her was being carried out at the original Disciplinary hearing and then again when confirmed at the appeal hearing.

The problem has always been in her case was the precedence set by previous disciplinary actions at the company meant the management had little alternative process they could bring about.

In the above, there was a landmark ruling set by an industrial court in the late 1980s that meant employers could not just post workplace signage instructing employees not to carry out various actions involving safety. In that, the court ruled they had to be seen to enforce those instructions or incur liability for any accidents that may come about.

The ruling was brought about in regard to a case involving a large distribution centre were employees often climbed up the high warehouse racking to pull boxes etc off the top of pallets rather than wait for the pallet to be lifted down. An accident occurred when an employee fell from the racking while climbing up it and incurred a very severe spinal injury.

Through the employee's trade union it was claimed in court that although strong signage was in place instructing employees not to climb on the racking the employer never enforced that ruling and in fact was very aware of the regular breach of safety by way of the above practice. Both employees and former employees of the distribution centre supported the injured person in the court action, and the case was upheld.

The above landmark ruling sent shockwaves through every HR department in the country, and active enforcement of workplace safety regimes became paramount practice. That undoubtedly has played against this employee in regard to her breach of safety with that ruling inline with Britains ever-growing claims culture meaning that H&S regime infringements are inevitably treated as gross misconduct especially in Britain's enormous distribution industry.

Thanks for the update Gd1943. I wonder if the company realise what a valuable employee they have lost?

Thanks for the update. That is good news.

The OP in this thread is so blooming patronising about this employee. Why is it stated so often that she is a "young single parent"? What relevance has that to anything? And then to refer the six year old daughter as a "young lady"!

Perhaps your company could do with some modernisation in attitude OP.

You may have seen my post on here eazy where I compared this case to mistakes made by doctors etc. I hope this young woman joins a union now

Interesting to compare this with the case of Hadiza Bawa-Garba, reinstated as a doctor despite being responsible for the death of a boy in her care.
The consensus on here seems to be that the dismissal of this employee was justified, even though no accident had occurred, because she had broken safety rules.
(I have no experience in this field so venture no opinion).

A legal secretary isn't a solicitor or even a paralegal. Have you got her title wrong granddad?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.