Foul language as sackable offence

[BananaCoconut]

The context is a semi-professional sporting environment, dealing with male adults. Two separate incidents where two players were called a 'bad name' are now being used as a 'sackable' offence on the grounds of bullying at work. DP has no previous history of bullying although his language tends to become more 'colourful' when the team is under-performing but that's deemed normal at professional clubs.
DP has no idea where he stands on this, and has been told that the governing body would immediately go down the disciplinary route, leading to gross misconduct dismissal. Could someone out there please advise?

Disciplinary sounds fair enough to me. Maybe he could change his behavior?

Disciplinary sounds right but if this is the first time he has been pulled up on his language, actual dismissal sounds a bit drastic. Was he actually told that the end result of this procedure is dismissal or was it presented as disciplinary proceedings which could result in a verbal warning, written warning or ultimately dismissal (i.e. a range of possible outcomes?)

What do you mean they are "now being used" as a sackable offence? Has this type of thing happened frequently before with no consequence?

I know that there's no justification for it but it has happened and I am looking for guidance on how to deal with the options that have been presented:

1. DP hands in his notice and is given 2 months pay
2. Go down the disciplinary route which will most likely end up with a dismissal for gross misconduct (or that is what he has been told) - suspension for two weeks while awaiting the disciplinary process to take its course. DP has also been told that the fact that a certain level of 'bad language' is deemed acceptable in more established environments would not be taken into account, the same applies for any testimonials from other coaches that they would not see anything wrong with it - and here I am by no means saying that I am supportive of this behaviour!!!

I used 'now' as the two incidents happened a while ago (one of them back in February). Basically, the chairman wants DP out, so a list of 'issues' has suddenly been produced with the two bad language incidents being used as grounds for immediate dismissal.

And no, DP hadn't been given any warnings or similar either for anything and nothing had been said about bad language other than informal jokes about 'changing room' pep talks.

Expect hin to learn?

Yes, a lesson that needs to be learned from this situation but that doesn't help us with deciding what to do now.

If the chairman wants him out, he will no doubt find a way. Can't be nice for your DP working in that environment either and it also sounds like he doesn't have much of a defence.

As such, what's to be gained by going the disciplinary route? I'd try and negotiate three months (or more) of pay and a good reference and move on.

Well he could put forward a defence that disciplinary concerns should be raised promptly. No one felt his actions were serious enough to warrant any kind of action at the time, and (presumably) there were no complaints raised by the other employees either, therefore deciding that it is now a gross misconduct offence is disproportionate and unreasonable.

It's not just "bad language" though, if it was directed at players and involved calling them names. That's verbal abuse. Worse than saying f-ing this f-ing that, and classic bullying.

You didn't answer whether this type of verbal abuse had happened before with no consequences, do you know? Also, what does the disciplinary procedure say about gross misconduct? Verbal abuse would often be on the list.

He could in theory go to lengths to produce evidence to support an argument that his use of language is a normal behaviour within the work culture. But the relationship between him and the chair would be irretrievably broken down regardless.

If OP's DP could show that his behaviour was not untypical for his specific work culture, then he might be in a stronger negotiating position if he does leave. (Not condoning swearing at people in the workplace, but context is important.)

Gross misconduct for swearing at work, at first glance, might seem extreme. Gross misconduct for verbally abusing colleagues seems fairly reasonable to me. And if, by any chance that "foul language" included discriminatory language, such as homophobic, or racial abuse, then the employer would really have no choice but to come down hard.

I'm reading between the lines a bit, but you say there's no justification for it, but then you try to justify it by saying its part of the culture at professional clubs. If your husband is taking a similar tack, he probably doesn't look much repentant to his employer. If he's going to try to stick it out, he's going to have to go to that disciplinary showing a bit of remorse, and a lot of willingness to change his behaviour. Basically, he needs to hold his hands up, apologise convincingly, admit he was an idiot, and promise never to do it again. If he's not ready to do that, he might as well take the two months pay and look for something else.

Thanks all for your responses, it's been most helpful and much appreciated.

I don't tolerate swearing, regardless of the environment, hence the 'there is no justification for it'. That is my view, which seems to clash with the reality of that particular sporting environment - the difference here being that it's a new club where only DP has had real exposure at a professional level.

DP asked for details of the complaints made by the two players' mothers in order to give him ammunition to ask for as much as possible as a pay-off. At the end of the day, it's all just become a witch-hunt exercise and he wouldn't have been able to achieve anything in that sort of climate.

On what basis does he think they are likely to give him a payoff, and how would complaints help him?

These players he's sworn at aren't children are they?

"DP asked for details of the complaints made by the two players' mothers in order to give him ammunition"

You're not seriously suggesting that a grown adult swearing at children (of an age that their mothers can raise a complaint) can be justified because more professional clubs have that appalling behaviour, are you?

so he was verbally abusive to children?

He should resign.
Swearing at children is inexcusable.
Before he takes up another similar position, he needs to seriously reconsider his approach.

What, two mothers have complained?

How old are these children?

You said he was dealing with male adults. Are they 18?

If the chairman got one report in feb, he might have left it rather than say anything, and a more recent report triggered an action. Was there a difference in "magnitude" eg "you bastard" vs "you motherfucker", for example?

OP, can you please clarify if your husband swore at adults or children?

She said adults in her op so they must be. I think much depends on what he said and where. If he was shouting 'fucking run' during training it's a different situation to calling someone a shit in the carpark.

I agree that's different, but she was clear in her OP that players were called "bad names", which makes it specifically verbally abusive of individuals rather than 'just' offensive language used for emphasis.

But why would adult men's mothers complain that their sons were sworn at or called bad names? Maybe they're young adults - 18/19?

I'm guessing young adults. It's not ideal, but lots of parents advocate for their grown-up-children if they feel they're not equipped to deal with workplace issues. It takes a certain amount of experience, and the confidence that goes with it, to recognise innappropriate behaviour in your senior colleagues, and even more of the same to tackle it. If that confidence is undermined by harassment, or maybe by mental health issues, then these employees are likely to want some support... And sadly, IMO, this generation are much less likely to join unions as soon as they start work.