my step son has been dismissed for gross misconduct - it appears they are basing this on an attendance of 77% at college (one day a week course) He has had 12 weeks and missed 2 1/2 days of the 12. Two where when asked to work by the company now firing him for missing college.

The other he left early ill and college said they would inform his work.

The one issue I think is that he did put college on his timesheet (though not hours but did not question when paid the full 7 1/2 hour rate)

It certainly does not seem like gross misconduct but he has only worked there 3 months so not sure if he has any legal standing?

(apprentice electrical type role)

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1461

Give acas a call and have a look over this website. Not got lots of time to look at this in any detail just now.

Essentially he can be let go at 3 months - but they have said it's gross misconduct and a breach of contract so that is an accusation which you may want to fight. Especially if you feel it's untrue.

If they had said, sorry we have to let you go and it's got nothing to do with gross misconduct then you'd have no come back.

But given they have said that then you can fight that acusation I think as it's potentially a false accusation with implications for future employment.

Don't you need a written warning first before you can be fired for gross misconduct ?

Seems like a convenient excuse to get rid

By all means check out the ACAS website but if you challenge unfair dismissal, does this stay on your records and do you have to declare to future employers ? If so, they could wrongly jump to the wrong conclusion ? I'm not sure....

Yeah, if they'd said they had to let him go but would provide him with a good reference, it's tough but fair. An allegation of GM is serious in my (recent) experience if it leads to termination, and as you say Groomyd, doesn't help his efforts onward. I'd most certainly seek external advice.

What does his contract say in relation to attendence?

I'd pay a visit to the Citizens Advice Bureau.

I'd also suspect you haven't heard the full story....

+1

Companies can make their own rules on levels of misconduct if they hold up at tribunal is another matter.

Needs a years service before can claim unfair dismissal unless its based on discrimination. So if what he has told you is a true representation of events, although sounding unfair, he has little recourse to an Employment tribunal unless can show its based on race, sex, religion etc etc. In technical HR speak I suspect he's bolloxed.

What he has told you doesn't really add up though if employed by a "decent" company. Attendance issues are capability not disciplinary, unless you are caught lying about sickness/bunking off etc. 2 1/2 days off sick is not enough of a crime to end up with a "one strike and you're out" dismissal from any reasonable employer.

But.......I would ask to see his dismissal letter though, as like Murf I really don't think you are geting an accurate version of events!!

Falsely filling in time sheets saying he was at college when he actually wasn't? Sorry, but that would be seen as fraudulent in my work.

What lessens it is that he was working most of the time so there was only one occasion (the sick day) that he actually wasn't anywhere related to work but declared on his time sheet that he was. Particularly if he is hourly rather than salary.

Was it a 3 month probation?

I also am unsure I have heard the full story.
No sign of a contract, he never had it sent through.

The email today which makes me think he is maybe treated unfairly..

"Firstly we need to speak about your dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct.

We require you to explain why you have claimed hours that you have not been at work (College) for; Failing to notify the office of your absence. We have a college record report with your attendances to go through.

We require to finalise payments which have been made to you, that you have claimed.

We also require to discuss allocated work clothing and passes.

Final payment hasn't and won't be made until this meeting has taken place."

He says he left college early that one time and college said they would contact the employer as they are obliged to and he only stated college on the timesheet - not any specific hours. Both at fault on that maybe?

Totally agree it may not be the full story but the email made me start to think they have dropped one maybe. The day he left early was over a month ago.

Sounds firm and on very strong grounds to me TT

Conjecture - he has not been at college for a while or he's been caught doing something he shouldn't.

Companies have to give verbal warnings first.
So I suspect he has a couple of verbal warnings before the gross misconduct.

Many companies have legal departments so they would not leave themselves open to being sued by disgruntled ex employee's.

Do they balls! That's why it's called GROSS misconduct.

No verbal or written warnings needed for GM Achiles (as far as I'm aware)

A possible error on timesheet that is dodgy may or may not be enough (when he hasn't listed 7.5 hours)

Small firm by the way...doubt anyone knows jack about HR or rules

So he never followed it up, I mean making sure that the company were aware of the discrepancy? Who at the college said that they would let his workplace know, the actual person?

What constitutes gross misconduct?

How serious does behaviour have to be before it becomes ‘gross misconduct’?

It needs to be serious enough to break the contractual relationship between employer and employee.

Acas lists the following as examples of ‘gross misconduct’: “dishonesty, theft or fraud; malicious damage; fighting, assault on another person; serious incapability through alcohol or illegal drugs; actions which endanger employees' safety; falsification or unauthorised removal of company records or property; and a serious act of insubordination”.

Therefore, stealing from the company, deliberately damaging company property, assaulting another employee, being abusive to co-workers or clients, or endangering other’s safety by breaching health and safety rules, are all examples of employee behaviour that amount to ‘gross misconduct’.

The list, however, is not exhaustive. The situations that would amount to ‘gross misconduct’ are subjective and depend on the circumstances of the job. For example, an airline pilot found to be drinking alcohol during a flight would likely be guilty of ‘gross misconduct’, but the situation may be different for an accountant.

Care should be taken where workers are found drunk or under the influence of drugs, as they may be addicted to alcohol or drugs and therefore may be able to resolve their problems through counselling or medical treatment.

The employer should be able to prove that the decision to dismiss the employee was one that a reasonable employer would have made, and was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and that the offence was so wrong that dismissal was an appropriate sanction.

Should the employee challenge their dismissal, an employment tribunal will be interested in whether the employer thoroughly investigated the alleged misconduct, whether alternatives were considered, whether the employee was given an opportunity to put their side of the story, and whether the employer followed all the relevant procedures.

These procedures are that the employer should undertake a thorough investigation, set out the problem in writing, offer the employee a face-to-face meeting to discuss it, give the employee an opportunity to have a witness present at the meeting, and allow the employee an opportunity to appeal.

It is very important that these procedures are properly followed, or the employer could be sued in the employment tribunal or civil courts.

Employers should keep records of all examples of gross misconduct, and should be consistent in their approach. The tribunal will not look favourably on an employer who dismisses one employee but gives another a second chance for the same mistake. It is a good idea to keep all documentary evidence, such as emails, letters, notes on any investigation and witness statements.

No idea who said they'd follow it up at the college, the lad is 18 (last week) so rarely see him

He just said they would call and he also said they are duty bound to keep the employee informed.

Personally, I'd have told work the next day and made sure in brackets on the time sheet I'd have said something (but I'm 40 and wiser)

Still doubt it's grounds for GM

Looking at the acas guidelines I published he has grounds for appeal if they have not followed the correct procedures especially as his explanation sounds reasonable and they have acted excessively regarding reaction to incident.

Purely a guess here based on the semantics - are they suggesting that he was claiming money for hours spent at college when he wasn't there, because he was at work with them - and therefore also had earned money from the employer?

Please excuse my ignorance about the apprentice system etc, not sure how it works financially, but I was trying to conjure up the angle they must be wanting to use.

If the lad's been falsifying timesheets then the company will probably view this as stealing from the company. It could also be viewed as dishonesty, theft or fraud.

All of which are Gross Misconduct.

Not 100% sure but believe he gets a base 7.5 hour salary from work for his "college" day which on that day he clearly should have had only 4 or whatever

Nothing from the college though bet your life the company gets a chunk of the govmt

It looks to me that various parts of the organisation are not communicating.
You say that he has missed 2.5 days of college but on his time sheets he put down that he was at college.
2 days he was asked to work and on the half day he was sick. The crucial part is that he did not say any of this on his time sheets.
The college submit their attendance report and the HR department check it against their own records and think he has lied and has been skipping college. He just needs proof that he was in work on the 2 days was he was not in college.

If you read TT original post he missed 2.5 days.

2 for working for said company.
and 0.4 for sickness and leaving college early.

Hardly making false statements on timesheets.
More small company getting rid of staff cheaply.

That is why I would never work for a small company.

Going by what TT has said that his boy's said, this isn't an attempt to falsify anything - his mistake is in trusting others to do something they are (apparently) meant to do.

To be honest, it sounds like this is a great company to work for, sounds like they'll use any excuse to pull the trigger.

To confirm, the other 2 days he missed college are down on his timesheet as working as he was asked to work.

I believe they errored in sacking him and are now frantically looking for a "reason" they could get rid.

Just gueswork at this moment of course.

The full pay for the part day at college is obviosly the one that they have any chance of pulling him on

The important word there is IF. In my experience HR departments are terrified of being taken to tribunals so it takes some doing to dismiss someone even when they are obviously no good.

Has he worked to the end of his probation period and they've just used an excuse to get rid?

Not sure. I was under the impression they could have said "sorry mate, we havn't got much work, bye" that would have been fine, it;s the whole GM thing that annoys as it's the forst job he's worked 10/12 hour days, weekends etc and really enjoyed.

If it was probation then they'd just move him on with no problem. No need for this messy end.

TT, you might not want to hear this, but putting 'college' on his time sheet for that sick day smacks to me of "I'll put something a bit vague down and see what happens". It's a rookie mistake - not something someone with experience would do with understanding of the risk involved. I mean, risking your job for a measly few hours of pay - not worth it at all.

So he learns a lesson. It's not enough to be above board, you actually have to be able to evidence that you are. He's 18 and wasnt there long so can just skip it off his CV.

Does sound a little harsh if a poss misunderstanding and lots of questions can be raised - did they follow internal procedures, do a proper investigation, invite him to a hearing, provide documention prior to hearing, offer colleague/rep, give him opportunity to explain, confirm outcome in writing, offer right of appeal etc etc.

But ultimately he hasn't got a years service so cant put an ET claim in. Company can do what they want. Only poss chance is claiming discrimination, probably based on age given what you have said. Does not need 1 years service for discrimination claims (or any service actually- can claim as result of issues during selection/interview).

However this does seem slim hope. CAB are ok on employment law depending on who you speak to. Could also approach a no win no fee employment lawyer. If they think they can make out of it they will take it on, so they are often a good judge of whether to personally bother persuing the matter. Nothing to lose doing aproaching one. For what its worth morally the company dont look great, legally I dont think they will be concerned. Sounds like the sort of place he better off not working for tbh.

It's still worth fighting it though if, as you say, it won't make a difference long-term. Has he even had a hearing?