Too Harsh???

I would still want to know if the company's disciplinary policies and procedures state that entering the warehouse without due regard to the company H&S policies would incur summary dismissal.

If she had received the required training and information and was then injured by ignoring H&S policy then i would imagine that providing the company had recorded the training in her personnel file then the liability would likely have been hers.

One can understand summary dismissal for misuse of handling equipment or forklifts, but whilst not knowing the full details if the case find it concerning to understand why final written warning was not used.
Hopefully the lady will seek advice if she considers her dismissal unfair.

Hi everybody, I will try to respond as best I can in this post to some of the points raised in the above posts.

In regard to the dismissed employee having sufficient safety awareness and training, then as an employee in the main administration office, she would have received both written and actual training regarding situation awareness and the operation of equipment that she regularly used in her daily duties. Regarding the loading dock and warehouse, she would have received and signed for all the written safety instructions that are given to those that are fully employed working in those areas, but not the actual on the job training that those persons receive. That would include manual handling training, safe operation of pallet trucks, and roll cages etc.

Along with the above, all employees are advised of the risk assessments that have been carried out pertaining to their employment and where those documents can be viewed and challenged if felt necessary. All the above information is given to new employees which they are required to sign to say they have received, and those documents are updated following each safety audit or any H&S incident if necessary.

Safety training is also provided for any new equipment that comes into service on the site or change in operational procedures for those that will be involved in using that equipment or changed procedures.

As has been stated, the employer has on a number of previous occasions dismissed employees for infringement of the safety regime at the distribution centre especially when those infringements have involved the operation of forklift trucks or other powered mechanical lifting equipment.

Regarding whether the employee may have any claim against the company under automatic unfair dismissal legislation, then I am certainly no deep employment law expert. However during all three stages of her disciplinary process (the initial interview, the full disciplinary hearing, or the appeal hearing) the employee never once claimed that she was unaware of the site H&S regulations that she transgressed against.

I believe the company gave her every opportunity to dismiss or mitigate the allegations made against her throughout those hearings. However, both the employee and her formal companion relied on the fact that she carried out what she did to facilitate the smooth operation of the complex and company which was not the best defence in her situation.

The company did bring in for the appeal hearing a Reginal Director which was undoubtedly brought about by the letters of support submitted by her friends and colleagues at the site. That stated, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing and after much deliberation that director summed up the proceedings by stating the employee undoubtedly did try to help the smooth running of the complex and company. However, those actions could not be taken as mitigation when placed against the blatant disregard of the site Health and Safety regulations which she engaged in.

With that, everybody's heart in the room sank, but it had seemed almost inevitable throughout the latter part of the hearing.

Did the company policy and procedures state that her actions were grounds for summary dismissal? If not and the proper disciplinary process had not been followed i.e. Verbal. Written warnings etc. Then the company could be liablento an ET on the grounds of constructive dismissal and that actually a final written warning would have sufficed. There would have been every probability that the girl would never do this action again and her work colleagues would understand the seriousness of the situation in the fact that she had been given a final written warning.

There was a dangerous area. The employee should not have gone into it as an accident could have been caused.
The other details are irrelevant, even the one about poor communication, as none of them show this to be any sort of emergency which would compel the employee to do what she did.

I don't think this was too harsh. Let me explain.

Not only was it contrary to policy, but if she had been injured, it would have become a Workers Compensation Board issue (this is what we call it in Canada; not sure what the term is in the UK but I would imagine you have a similar organization; it handles cases of workplace injury and determines what treatment is appropriate and if the employee will need compensation, modified duties, etc.). If she had been seriously injured the company could have had some degree of liability for her injuries. That's a HUGE legal risk for them to take.

She chose not to follow policy. She put herself in a potentially VERY dangerous situation. That has consequences.

Hi Gd1943 thanks for your reply. I have been googling this and although the woman didn't have the qualifying work period as the dismissal was over a health and safety issue I believe she may be able to contest this www.landaulaw.co.uk/when-can-there-be-automatic-unfair-dismissal/
I may be totally wrong of course

It sounds like they have already sacked at least one other person for doing the same thing and therefore they feel they can't treat her any differently. Do you know if this person was an office employee like the young woman? A lot of people are blaming the company, assuming she wasn't informed, but it sounds like this was not the case. However is it possible that she didn't receive enough health and safety information as an office employee? When I worked for an insurance company we had to do CBTs every year to make sure we were up to date with H&S - does your company do this? Would it be possible to find out if she has had sufficient training and information? At the end of the day I don't think that her trying to be helpful is mitigating circumstances for gross misconduct, as you don't want to encourage people to cut corners when it comes to safety.

Hi Trisher, I believe the point you make in your post @ 12:37pm today (06/04/19) is highly valid. My company was present at both hearings in an advisory capacity to the employer and in that had no official obligation or responsibility of representation to the employee. However, under current employment legislation, an employee is allowed what is known as a "formal companion" who can accompany any person attending a grievance or disciplinary hearing which can be a trade union representative or any person employed in the workplace.

Unfortunately, the employee was not a member of any trade union, so a workplace friend accompanied her to both hearings, but her lack of training and experience most definitely showed through when speaking in support of the employee's case.

In that, I firmly believe that a full-time trade union organiser or branch officer would have made much more of the poor communications and working relationship that seems to exist between the loading bank dock office and the main administration office at the site. That long-standing poor communication was the sole reason the employee went down to the warehouse herself to check if the product under question was actually in the racking and in the place it should be.

However, that factor was not raised in the way it should have been by the employee as her and her companion consistently placed emphasis on the fact that she was only trying to "help the company" in carrying out what she did. That was without doubt not the best defence of her situation in the opinion of all who attended both hearings.

As I stated in an earlier post, I took along one of our Legal Secretaries to the appeal hearing in the hope that anything stated by her may have found some residence in an industrial court (tribunal) ruling at any time in the past. In that, we were, in reality, trying to find holes in our own safety regime at the site in an attempt to help her. However, nothing was ever stated by her or her companion at that hearing that made such research necessary.

A few of us have been into our office working this morning (Saturday) as we are still very busy at present with extra Brexit related work we have taken on. That said, the situation this young single parent has found herself in is still very much a talking point whenever we make ourselves a few spare minutes. It has touched the hearts of everyone it seems, but what (if anything) can be done remains to be seen. However, a few suggestions are being made.

It seems to me that there is probably a lot of blame being heaped upon this young woman and thet a lot of people may have used her as a way of covering themselves. The reason why she had to leave at 2.30pm is largely irrelevant apart from the fact that it can and probably has been used to make it appear that she acted in haste. Possibly the dock office supervisor was missing for some time and in blaming her covered his own back. Gd1943 As your company were already involved with the organisation and had set up the safety training etc wouldn't it have been more ethical and perhaps better for the employee if someone had been brought in who was a disinterested observer.I don't think that your company is necessarily biased just that a new eye sometimes gives a different perspective and notices things that have just been accepted and become habits.

"I wonder that if this infringement has occurred a number of times, maybe the company hasn't looked into the possibility that their safety procedures are inadequate and they need tightening up and in fact she has inadvertently pointed out a loophole in their operations."

SueDonim - that is a distinct possibility and perhaps they have sacked this young woman to cover themselves and their inadequacies. Should it be possible for a staff member to enter a dangerous area where she does not normally work without any checks being made.

I think a written warning and retraining may have been the best course of action, not dismissal.
The company are at fault too.

I have no knowledge of such matters but a couple of things strike me. One is that the woman had signed a copy of the regulations about the warehouse. Was that during her initial induction, 18 months previously? Had there been regular reminders of the rules since then, to reinforce the point? I know the rules to not enter a warehouse would seem obvious but people are only human.

Another point is that other employees have been dismissed for similar infringements. I wonder that if this infringement has occurred a number of times, maybe the company hasn't looked into the possibility that their safety procedures are inadequate and they need tightening up and in fact she has inadvertently pointed out a loophole in their operations.

It's hard not to feel sorry for the woman and her family, whether dismissal is justified or not.

Lemon, I agree with you. I think sacking the young woman was really too harsh. I think a final written warning would have been sufficient.

Iam64, I am aware that this wonderful young women and mother who has been sacked from her employment has posted on social media herself in regard to what has happened to her.

I am not sure where she has posted that or what she has stated, but I felt to state her case on this unique forum would bring different views on the matter.

I do understand your concerns though Iam64. So, many thanks for expressing them.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Gd1943 the first thing I would have questioned would be the availibility of the loading dock office supervisor. If it had been possible for her to contact them either by phone or walkie talkie it would have saved her time or even made her visit completely unnecessary. It also seems unsafe that anyone should be able to enter the loading area unobserved, after all if there is a regulation about contacting someone surely that person should be instantly visible.
So I think you will gather that I do not agree with her dismissal. In fact I think she should challenge the decision on the grounds that proper communication and safety were not in place.
(But I know nowt about it really so could be completely wrong!)

Grandad - I simply feel uncomfortable that we are discussing a person without their consent, or the consent of any of the panel who made the decision. There is an issue to discuss but couldn’t it have been raised without giving personal information such as the woman being distressed, having a young child etc. Imagine if this was my daughter we were discussing, without her knowledge or consent
I appreciate the nature of my work probably sensitised, you may argue, oversensitised me to issues of confidentiality. So in answer to your quedtion, I don’t ‘identify where the breach of confidentiality is in the above”. I simply repeat I think this important issue could have been raised without it being linked to a real woman who has lost her job in circs that I’m not convinced am warranted that and mean she will struggle to find employment. Nit everyone needs personal stories in order to consider whether a course of action is fair

Iam64, with reference to your above post, no one on this forum is aware of this persons name, the name of the company she worked for, the names of those persons taking the hearings, my name or the name of my company as the safety advisory body at those hearings.

Therefore Iam64, please inform me where the breach in confidentiality is in the above.

The idea that the company would be able to give a good reference does not stack. The employer is saying that they have behaved so badly that it has warranted instant dismissal, it's going to be very difficult to get a new job. I really fail to understand how they came to that conclusion, based on what had been posted.

So if this was an internal disciplinary panel, that raises my question about confidentiality to another level. I'm not seeking to be picky about the OP because this is a serious issue but I'm not sure whether confidentiality or even just simple respect for others, would mean its wrong to share this level of information on a public forum.

In this case the employee would have been damned if she didn't and was damned when she did. Unfair dismissal.

Far too harsh!
A warning not to do it again, followed by a thank you for trying to help the company would be my choice!

Sorry missed the bit about the length of her employment. I hope those on the panel can sleep at night.

Way too harsh. There are plenty of other disciplinary options that the company could have taken. Removing someone's livelihood is a last resort, not first. A written warning would have sufficed. I would not think that this can be construed as gross misconduct - eg. theft, physical violence etc. This may have been a health and safety violation but it was not wanton or reckless. I think she should take then to an Employment Tribunal. I suspect she will win too.

What a sad tale. I have every sympathy with the woman in question, but really the company had to abide by the rules for the sake of equality and consistency. Is there any reason why the company could not re-hire her in a different role on a new contract? That would be an outcome that would recognise the extra-ordinary circumstances surrounding her actions.

It was fortuitous that the forklift truck driver saw her and perhaps she should have had a formal written warning.

It was a very foolish and dangerous thing to do.