Charlie b acs
Wow. Come for a bit of advice and get abuse and then people sticking up for the people giving abuse.
fyi above comment I have a personal business to, maybe not as big as some of you but if I had this done to me by a worker whos been there years and I respect. I would maybe find out why he did it. And I would give someone a second chance if they deserved it. Just saying.
Hi chris. I dont have the handbook with me so cant say anything on that yet. We have never been warned about this. I hold my hands up and admit my error. We all make mistakes. I dont want compensation. I want to get advice from experienced people like yourselves as to what I can do. I will appeal it and see what happens. There are 4 more people yet to be given a sacking or final warning but I regardless of how many he she done its the same thing. One cannot be trusted more cos they did 30 or 50 or 70 as opposed to ones who may have done 100 or 150.
This is technically incorrect. Please see my post above which clarifies the position about consistency of sanction in relation to the fairness of the decision to dismissNothing.
You got sacked for gross misconduct. The fact that others kept their job is irrelevant. There is nothing to appeal.
But the OP has already admitted that the offences weren't consistent so why would the punishment be? All parties have been investigates (which is consistent) and the two for whom the investigations are complete have both been punished. The level of punishment difference because the severity of the offence differs.
But the OP has admitted they ignored far more calls than the others so there is consistency in sanction.
Just out of interest Carl, what would the situation be if the OP was a senior staff member such as a shift supervisor or even a team leader? What if the OP was entrusted with some degree of seniority albeit unofficial?Several people have quoted my post and have suggested that the OP merited a greater disciplinary sanction than his colleagues because he ignored more calls. I don't think that an Employment Tribunal would take this view (which is why I have suggested right from the outset of this that the OP would probably succeed with an unfair dismissal claim but that he would receive limited compensation). Several people obviously find this difficult to understand so it may help if I clarify that a Tribunal would look at this situation and define the reason for the decision to dismiss (what is the breach of contract?) - the reason is because the OP ignored calls. It's not because he ignored 100 calls, or 50 calls or some other magic number. Once the Tribunal forms this view it's not logical that employees who ignored fewer calls (i.e. the same technical breach of the contract) are treated differently.
Imagine if this had been a scenario involving theft by a group of employees. It would have been perfectly understandable that an employee would be dismissed for theft, but a distinction based upon the value of the amount stolen would be illogical - i.e. one employee is dismissed because they stole £100 but a different employee who stole £50 is not dismissed.
I assume that the people who have posted on here are employers. If you think that you can impose different disciplinary sanctions upon a group of employees who all undertake the same breach of their employment contract you are running a significant risk of facing (and probably losing) litigation. If you want to run that risk I suggest that you take out litigation insurance or make friends with a solicitor.