Too Harsh???

Callistemon, her training was one of the debates in what the punishment should be. Those employed in the warehouse are given both written and "actual on the job training" in the safety regime.

The office staff are only given the written instructions of the safety regime for the warehouse and picking areas, and she had signed to say she had received that.

The above is why all who are not employed permanently in those areas are instructed to report to the loading dock office supervisor before proceeding into the warehouse.

In her hurry, that she did not do.

There are many instances of people being killed in fork lift truck accidents - if that had happened her child would be motherless.

Did she have adequate training in H&S?

Iam64, it was not an industrial tribunal. It was an internal company disciplinary procedure carried out under current employment legislation.

The person involved will not be able to go forward to an industrial tribunal as she does not have two years continuous employment with the company which is required under the above legislation.

She only has eighteen months of employment with this company.

There is no point in having Health and Safety Regulations if someone is going to flout them even 'in the best interests of the company ' - in her opinion anyway.

Dismissal does seem rather harsh and perhaps a warning should have been given. However, I have heard of accidents occurring with fork lift trucks and, had this happened to her, who would be to blame? The fork lift truck driver could not be blamed but this could devastate him/her if she had been injured - or worse.

Ex not experience

The unhappiest time of my working life was in a management role. I would have been useless in a situation like this. How much pay is she due? Enough for her to manage until she finds a new job ? But often you have to say why you left your last job - sacked for gross misconduct doesn’t look good. Her ex employers might be able to help on the informal grapevine but if she can’t find a job she’ll be sanctioned when she claims. As for setting a precedent and other experience employees claiming the circumstances would have to be very similar for that to work. Still it’s all too late now - hope she doesn’t end up homeless.

I don’t know enough about this kind of tribunal but, are they usually reported in the press? The level of personal insider detail in the OP and subsequent comments seemed to expose the young woman who lost her job.
I recognise the importance of health and safety in the workplace. She made an error of judgement with the best of intentions. Sacking seems harsh unless she’d a record of poor judgrments

I assume that her employer will give her a good reference and help her find a new job.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

It was the right decision.

I think her reasons were immaterial really, what she did was wrong. However if this was her first offence I think a written warning would have sufficed.

If she has an otherwise blameless record, I think that any fair employer would use their creativity to find a way round this.

Alternatively, would she have a claim against them because the person who should have taken over from her was not present and the employer had made no allowance for how to deal with any emergency in their absence, or on sex discrimination that she had to deal with a stock discrepancy and again there was no one to cover in a specific case like this where she could not stay to sort it out because she had to be home for her child.

Who would have been held responsible if there had been a stock discrepancy and she hadn't found out? Would it have been her, which brings us back tt the replacement/sex discrimination argument.

Could they get an employment lawyer in with the task of sorting this tangle out to everybodies satisfaction. It strains against every fibre of justice.

maryeliza I'm not sure you can compare a healthcare setting with an industrial one.

In healthcare, there's always a risk, both from the risk factors that a patient brings with them in terms of their medical history, and risks associated with the competence of the professionals who are delivering care. These risks have to be assessed and managed.

In construction and industry the risks are much more clearly defined, the rules are there, clearly stated, and basically, you comply. You don't take it upon yourself to manage risk differently from standing orders, in what you imagine are the interests of the company.

Please don't think I don't sympathise with this young woman. I do. But I think the only mitigation would be if she could demonstrate that her H&S training had been inadequate.

Afraid I agree that it was the right decision. Perhaps the company might be able to find her another job as her financial position must be perilous right now.

Anywhere that involves forklift trucks and pallets has stringent health and safety rules. Sorry, but the ruling was correct in spite of the good intentions. If one person 'gets away with it' it raises all sorts of problems should another follow suit

To add to the original opening post, at the end of both the disciplinary hearing and the appeal the employee was asked to leave the room while a lengthy discussion took place in regard to what the punishment should be in her case.

On both occasions, there was much sympathy in that she was genuinely trying to help the company in carrying out her actions.

However, it was felt that precedence had been set in previous similar safety infringement cases within the company where employees had been dismissed. That it was felt may have made the company liable to claims by those former employees and limit what punishment could be levied in the future should anything lesser had been given.

I appreciate that dealing with the aftermath of an accident is really difficult but if every doctor dentist nurse was sacked who made even a serious ( or potentially serious) mistake we’d lose a lot of staff. Recently at a local NHS trust there was a ‘never event’. As the name suggests, it should never have happened. The very elderly patient had to have repeat surgery but survived. The surgeon ( whose responsibility it was) was terribly upset, He had a blameless record and everyone has reviewed what happened and is sure it won’t happen again and he continues working.

A written warning should have sufficed. The decision was very harsh under the circumstances, terrible.

I know many health care staff who have put patients at risk ( or actuslly harmed them) and they have been given another chance - perhaps she could have been sent on a refresher health and safety course. I think
past behaviour and intent should be part of the decision making as well as showing genuine remorse and an awareness of why it was wrong.

My husband is a contracts manager in charge of several building sites. Most accidents happen because people ignore the safety advice they have been given, but inevitably it reflects on him if an accident occurs, even if it is not his fault. This is a tremendous responsibility and it causes him a lot of work and grief ensuring that employees and contractors adhere to safety procedures - i.e. hard hats, high visibility clothes, toolbox talks and daily inductions on health and safety - it is something companies take very, very seriously. I'm afraid your colleague ignored all the rules, for whatever reason and put herself and others at risk. It is upsetting because she's a single mum with a young daughter, but can you imagine how upsetting it would be for someone like my husband (a grandfather of 5) to have to deal with the aftermath if an accident had occurred?

There was no ill intent in what she did - quite the reverse. I think that should have weighed more in her favour - final written warnings are very severe and I’m sure one would have done the job.

Sorry but I think it was the right decision.
She put both the dock office supervisor and the driver in an invidious position.
She may have been putting only herself at risk, but put the driver, the supervisor and the company itself at risk.

If there had been an accident, no doubt the Health & Safety Executive would have successfully prosecuted both the company and the other employees.

Bridgeit as she has only been employed by the company for 18 months she will not be able to take her case to an industrial tribunal.

I agree that would have been a final written warning in my world.

Given the facts above, I would have thought a final written warning would have sufficed. Poor woman - it will affect her benefits and getting another job.