Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Warning - dismissal for use of internet at work

32 replies

NewSlinkymalinki · 12/05/2006 12:30

Dear all
A friend of mine has just been dismissed for gross misconduct, for excessive use of the internet at work. She had no warnings, and has never been to a dodgy site in her life, just checks her personal email and looks and posts at sites like MN. She is a qualified professional and was in middle management. Her work was not suffering - she used to meet the most horrendous deadlines. But her contract said she wasn't allowed to use the internet, and that was it. The fact that everyone else in the office was doing exactly the same, and worse, didn't seem to matter.
So watch out, all you workplace MNetters Sad

OP posts:
crazydazy · 12/05/2006 12:34

I use it at work too, its so boring otherwise. Will be more aware though, thanks.

Hausfrau · 12/05/2006 12:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dior · 12/05/2006 12:38

A bit unfair if everyone else was using it!

FairyMum · 12/05/2006 12:43

I think these things are often used to get rid of people they don't want. I obviously don't know your friend, but that's what we do in our company. The people we want can use the net as much as they like, but if we want a reason to dismiss someone, inetrnet usage is a good one.

Bugsy2 · 12/05/2006 12:49

I'm sure she could contest that as unfair - if it was a rule that everyone was flouting. Sounds to me like they were looking for an excuse to sack her.

wannaBe1974 · 12/05/2006 17:05

tbh I would imagine that there is more to it than that. If everyone does it, then i would imagine they would have had a warning about the excessive use of the net in the office. If your friend has been going to unquestionable sites, then she's not likely to admit it really is she :).

Hattie05 · 12/05/2006 17:16

Fairymum - i wouldn't go advertising that fact! That is horrendous discrimination and i am appauled by your comment.

Newslinkymalinki - sorry to hear about your friend Sad. Do they not have a formal procedure they are supposed to follow with warnings etc.

Freckle · 12/05/2006 18:53

Sounds as though the company has not complied with statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures. Your friend should seek legal advice.

NotQuiteCockney · 12/05/2006 18:59

FairyMum's company's method is common. They know everyone is using the net like mad, but only look into it when they want to get rid of someone.

It's not fair and it's not nice, but it is really really common.

Earlybird · 12/05/2006 19:02

I would think this would be hard to prove. What if you had Mumsnet (or another site) on your active screen all day, but it was minimised while you got on with other work?

Tinker · 12/05/2006 19:05

I've wondered about that EB. Don't look at mn now at work (normally!) but am sure I've left BBC site on and have been out of the office for most of the day.

LeahE · 12/05/2006 19:09

Generally for "gross misconduct" they don't have to give warnings -- that's in most contracts of employment. If the company has an internet usage policy that clearly states that personal use of the internet will be considered gross misconduct then it's hard to see how she could claim unfair dismissal. And as long as you aren't discriminating on the grounds of age, race, religion, gender or trade union activity then it's perfectly legal to discriminate as much as you like.

milge · 12/05/2006 19:09

If a company want to get rid of you, they will find some way of doing so - as fairymum says. It is unfair, awful for the person concerned, but pretty widespread practise.
Very sorry this happened to your friend, NSM. I declined to activate my internet at work, as the temptation would be too much and I know how they monitor "online" time via our pc's and laptops.

NotQuiteCockney · 12/05/2006 19:39

It is hard (but not impossible) to prove someone has been wasting time online. (NB: they generally can't tell how long you left a page up for, just what pages you loaded, and when) But it's really really easy to prove they went to non-work-related pages. BBC may not count as non-work-related.

tigermoth · 12/05/2006 20:16

oh, that's really bad news, really sorry about your friend. Accas is good for employment advice. I hope that whatever advice she gets makes her feel a bit better with the situation. If she alone was targeted, it may be better in the long run that she is out of it.

There is an internet policy at our place of work - I will be much more careful now :(

tigermoth · 12/05/2006 20:24

oh, and according to the internet policy, it says you will be subject to discipline (ie proper warnings) not instant dismissal as such. Gross misconduct would be if the internet was seriously affecting your performance. If your friend's internet policy is similar, that might be a point worth querying.

NotQuiteCockney · 12/05/2006 20:47

Ok, I spoke to DH about this one, as he works with this sort of issue rather a lot. A few points:

  • it's unusual (but not impossible, I guess) for net use to be gross misconduct.
  • it's illegal to apply these rules unevenly. It's legal to say "everyone but NewSlinkymalinki's mate can use the net", as long as you have that as an official policy. But if the official policy is, net use -> instant sacking, but only one person gets sacked, then that's unfair dismissal.

So it sounds like your friend was probably sacked unfairly. She should talk to a lawyer, I think.

FairyMum · 12/05/2006 20:53

Hattie05, I am stating a fact, I didn't personally invent this way of dismissing people.... This is common in many companies and especially in US-run companies I think. In a big US bank I used to work for, they sacked around 20 staff after a rather tasteless email of the Princess Diana car crash was circulated. Some were sacked for just opening the email sent by their colleagues. Sounds unfair, but try to sue. They'll probably settle with a small amount of money and you will never work in the industry after words goes around you sued. I don't know what business your friend worked for, but in some inductries it is dog eats dog I'm afraid.

tigermoth · 12/05/2006 20:58

fairymu7m, awful story about those colleagues, but I think you are making big generalisations.

NotQuiteCockney · 12/05/2006 21:00

Oh, fairymum, I think you're mostly right - but I suspect they settle court cases with reasonable sums. They don't want to see a ES headline saying "Barings staff porn net scandal" (picking a dead bank to be fair).

The bank I knew that was worst for email problems was a UK one. They didn't allow net access, except from a computer in the canteen (!!), and would regularly sack people for receiving non-work-related emails. Yes, receiving.

But of course, in both these cases, the rules were applied evenly, so probably sacked people had no recourse.

FairyMum · 12/05/2006 21:00

tigermoth, you think? why?

expatinscotland · 12/05/2006 21:00

sounds like they wanted to get rid of her, especially if others have been doing the same thing w/no consequence.

yeah, many US companies are just like the rest of the place - Big Brother on a corporate scale.

FairyMum · 12/05/2006 21:06

I have worked in management for almost a decade in big banks (both UK and US) and believe me, I have seen it all and unfortunatly also sometimes carried out the sacking on behalf of mngt. Unles you are a really "big fish" we normally settled for 3-5K. Not a lot of money and your reputation would be receiving afew beatings on the grapevine.I obviousy can't comment on this specific case, but unfortunately I know rather a lot about what I am talking about......

Earlybird · 12/05/2006 21:10

Gosh Fairymum - that's not alot of money for dismissing someone. But you're right, the cost of fighting the dismissal is often too great - legally, emotionally and professionally.

Rach69 · 12/05/2006 21:27

That's a nightmare, I know eg that NEXT's head office is very strict on this type of thing. I work from home on a networked laptop and broadband provided by my employer (still have it now on mat leave thankfully) but we had to sign a contract regarding internet use. Interestingly we now have such a tough firewall that we cannot download various types of file or install our own software. Certain types of sites are always banned (ie porn etc) but we can have an hour of otherwise free access between 8am - 6pm, after which it just won't let you onto the net. Outside those times we have free access (ie evenings, weekends) We can access 'work' related sites (including banks, travel stuff etc) at any time. I think this is the way forward, I can't get blamed for wasting time on the net and the rest of the family can't access dodgy sites which I'm quite happy with.