Owen Jones Twitter feed

we have 'indecent behaviour' as one of our reasons for dismissal for gross misconduct.

I'd be amazed if the NSPCC didn't.

I have known 3 people fired gross misconduct

There then gone

Alright yes you have to investigate.

PP was implying that this, assuming assuming evidence true, it would still be hard to sack them

It wouldn't it would be gross misconduct which is no warnings no second chances.

If it is true that this behaviour wouldn't constitute gross misconduct in lots of orgs then there is a problem.

We must all pull together

😂

Surely once is bad enough, but twice (that we know if, it seems extraordinarily unlikely he didn't do it again and again and again)

I would think that would weigh heavily on the side of whatever procedure they have for such things. If they documented it, which might be an issue as people often don't bother.

But it sounds like he will try and claim homophobia, which could drag things out, even if they did take appropriate action right away.

It amazes me how entitled some people are. How they think they can do what the fuck they like with an employers time or money and that somehow they are untouchable

Ive worked in voluntary & statutory sector and without fail those whose practice was at odds with the needs of service users when challenged were the ones who dug in & extracted the most time and money before they were eventually dismissed.

Its not a coincidence.
The focus was on their needs & their rights which was why they were unsuitable to work with and for children / vulnerable adults.

Pretty certain my DH will say his company would suspend and immediately contact their in house employment lawyer.

Both tried to take it to tribunal saying work stress had led them to do it. Didn't get very far thank fuck.

It amazes me how entitled some people are. How they think they can do what the fuck they like with an employers time or money and that somehow they are untouchable.

At the very least he should be suspended while an investigation takes place.

Like a certain NUS officer.

Both were investigated. You can't sack with no evidence. In the case we are talking about there is plenty of evidence.

I have sacked two people for gross misconduct. One was stealing and it was caught on cctv. One was on a work trip and got very drunk and asked a supplier to get him drugs. Was witnessed by the supplier (who told me) and his assistant who backed up the suppliers side of events.

tirisfal

It is the case that it would be unfair dismissal. This is my day job and I have done hundreds of gross misconduct cases. You can suspend immediately, as in my view they should do here, but not dismiss. Whatever someone has done, as employer you have to follow a fair procedure, and sacking on the spot isn’t it. There is plenty to criticise the NSPCC for here, but not instantly dismissing isn’t one of them.

He may already be in hot water for hiring Munroe Bergdorf without doing due diligence - her tweets inviting DMs from children were there to be seen, and their statement acknowledges failings on their part in that regard. Presumably that falls under his remit.

Not just him but all who signed off the decision.

When NSPCC refused to engage with MN members last year they issued this statement, whilst wholely inadequate & incorrect in part, it has relevence in what it does say:

"MN statement, "However, in view of the questions asked in this thread, we asked the NSPCC for a statement:

The NSPCC doesn’t consider there to be specific child protection concerns in relation to trans-inclusive policies. Any space and activity involving children should have strong safeguarding policies in place, with a proper risk assessment to minimise the risks to all children involved. And every adult working with children should undergo rigorous safety checks and vetting procedures to ensure that young people are safe in their care.

Trans young people are at particular risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse from peers. This can heighten the risk of abuse by adults as children turn online for support and access to networks of those sharing similar views and feelings. There should be high-quality, statutory relationships and sex education, alongside strong school safeguarding policies, to ensure that all children are kept safe in schools."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3353658-AIBU-to-be-shocked-that-the-NSPCC-cancelled-their-Facebook-Live-session-with-Mumsnetters-because-they-didnt-like-the-questions-That-they-cant-explain-why-they-arent-putting-children-in-danger

thread with Safeguarding questions which NSPCC refused to engage with:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

Its straightforward unfair dismissal to sack on the spot without doing an investigation.

I don’t think that’s the case. If the facts are clearly apparent, there’s nothing to investigate. If he was denying it was him, maybe, but ‘making a rubber porno in the gents’ seems pretty unambiguous gross misconduct, unless he has an ‘occasional piss peccadillo’ clause in his contract.

www.mincoffs.co.uk/latest/bringing-an-employer-into-disrepute/

"In addition, and with the explosion and increasing use of social media, a common feature in many employment contracts and social media policies are provisions prohibiting individuals from making posts on social media that may bring their employer in disrepute"

I would think that this behaviour and the subsequent posting on social media would definitely be classed as bringing your employer into disrepute, particularly as the employer is a children's charity.

He may already be in hot water for hiring Munroe Bergdorf without doing due diligence - her tweets inviting DMs from children were there to be seen, and their statement acknowledges failings on their part in that regard. Presumably that falls under his remit.

It is perfectly possible to instantly dismiss someone for gross misconduct, I have done it myself. Yes they got lawyers involved but they didn't have a leg to stand on

They had every leg to stand on if it was England and Wales. Its straightforward unfair dismissal to sack on the spot without doing an investigation.

I am not criticising them at all for not dismissing him immediately, or making any statements publically condemning him. I am concerned though if don’t seem to see any issue worthy of investigating.

The recent Edinburgh University example would seem a good one. LGBTQ+ groups seem to weild extraordinary power within some organisations.

Sorry. Managers like Peter Wanless are responsible. And their boards need to back them. And if, like Edinburgh the LGBTQ goes off in a huff, so be it. I doubt that managers or their boards would have any intention of ignoring the provisions of the equalities act. They should be willing to face up to further demands from internal lobby groups if those demands either conflict with the priorties or good running of the organisation or the needs of other members of staff.

Julie Bindel has just shared this on twitter regarding OJs comparisons to a return to section 28.

Sorry if already shared; couldn't see it.

rebelyarn.wordpress.com/2019/06/13/are-we-seeing-a-return-of-section-28/

But he's already got in the shit for it before, Goose.

Surely once is bad enough, but twice (that we know if, it seems extraordinarily unlikely he didn't do it again and again and again)

Genuinely can’t wait for DH to come home from work (he’s been away since Monday). I’ve deliberately not told him anything because I want to see his face.

He works for a large manufacturing group as a project manager, so visits multiple sites all over Europe. He knows his industry back to front from factory floor to boardroom.

I just want to ask him ‘what would happen if someone made a wanking video in the work toilets and posted it online?’

There are no safeguarding issues, employees are mostly male (but there are quite a few women at the top levels).

It's always easier to sack people in the private sector, although uions mitigate that.

But unless you are in the US where they can sack you on a whim, it can be very drawn out and there are all kinds of possibilites for claiming mitigating circumstances. Many unions grieve every sacking if the affected employee wants it.

Underfunding is absolutely an issue, or in-house regulations that say they should do whatever is cheapest to get rid of the individual.

NewarkShark exactly

It's called doing your job properly as people managers and hr professionals. It's not a pleasantly Job and must be carried. out professionally and fairly - but it's part of what you're being paid to do

It is perfectly possible to instantly dismiss someone for gross misconduct, I have done it myself. Yes they got lawyers involved but they didn't have a leg to stand on.

It's difficult to sack someone for many trivial reasons but things that constitute gross misconduct will be outlined in their contract of employment

I only know private sector, but definitely seen summary dismissals for far, far less. At the very least he should be suspended while an investigation takes place.