i dont allow vaping in my factory and it would go down as gross misconduct and i would either worn or sack them depending on what machine they where on.
its all covered in there contract and they sign forms when they join to ensure they are aware of it.
from a company point of view, if i had a member of staff needing 12 weeks on the sick i would also be looking for any reason to get rid of him. sounds awful but being a small company (15 staff) i cant carry dead weight.
Enjoy your constructive dismissal tribunals.Originally Posted by donnylad
Those dead wieght are living breathing people BTW.
I would call ACAS and get the exact low down. They make most HR practice.
Make sure everything was handled correct as one error can mean he was sacked wrongly.
Was there an investigation meeting
Was he told it was not a disciplinary at the point.
Was he taken through employment changes with the Vaping highlighted on his return to work.
can they prove it?
One call to ACAS with the fact and he will know exactly were he stands.
Doesn't just sound awful...
Maybe that's why he only has 15 "dead weights"
I think you're twisting what he's saying. He wasn't referring to his team as dead weight. But it's difficult to deny that a small company can't afford to realistically pay people long term sick.
Yeah piman has it right. my misses is having problems with women going on leave having the 12 months off to have a baby then coming back for a couple of months then leaving again to have a 2nd or 3rd. 1 even tried to sue as the company gave one of the temps a full time postion that was higher than her while she was off too busy to return then posts all over fb that shes going to take the fully paid holiday time at the end of the 12months off then leave(or in her terms not turn up)
Its great for big companies but for small businesses its very hard to keep it up especially with the cost of training needed. Which like most small now seem to advoid women of certain ages.
My other half regards e cigs the same normal smoking
Yep for women like my girlfriend who has no interest in having kids at all but is in that age bracket where she is penalised.
And what does the maternity policy say? Because every place I've ever worked at has a policy that says after maternity leave, the employee has to stay in the role for a minimum of x months. Either there's a very generous holiday entitlement, a very holey contract, or some element of bullshit going on.
yep and it sucks I know a few female friends who are saying companies seem very reluctant to let them climb the ladder. I see it from both sides but im not sure what the answer is.
I hope they like tribunalsat the time it seemed like the whole contact was pointless it was only the fact that the job had been listed in a email to everyone that she didnt end up having to pay damages too the employee. Its cheaper for the women to come back have full paid holiday than to fight her again. I think the women gets around £1000 a month then shes gone hopefully vs tribunal at like 5k.
I think its a bit of a kick in the face to a lot of the guys as most only can get a couple of weeks off due to finances.
As usual, I'm trying to make sense of what you wrote, but I'm pretty sure that a large multinational company, and a government agency both have HR policies that are pretty bloody watertight.
It sounds like crap contracts and a rubbish legal team in your case
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
