I've Got Someone Sacked .....

Dolph said:
But he wasn't sick, he was unfit for work voluntarily.

Are you (and everyone else promoting the same idea) suggesting he both committed an act of misconduct, and advised someone to commit a further act of misconduct by abusing the sickness policy?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that anyone who is unfit for work by their own action is guilty of misconduct?

Sometimes discretion in the use of disciplinary procedures is of benefit to both the employee and the employer.
 
Castiel said:
Are you suggesting that anyone who is unfit for work by their own action is guilty of misconduct?

Sometimes discretion in the use of disciplinary procedures is of benefit to both the employee and the employer.
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting that anyone who pulls a sickie when they aren't sick is guilty of misconduct in the vast majority of cases, as would be someone who recommended that course of action.

Discretion has benefits for both sides, but ultimately, discretion should apply to the consequences of the action, not the judgement of the action itself.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
The entire responsibility for drinking before work and all associated consequences lies with the drinking employee, not the employee who raises a concern about it.
Click to expand...

100% this exactly, anyone saying otherwise is a bit thick. Also, people should remember that the employee would have probably shown signs of having imbibed alcohol to other employees and would've got the sack anyway.



Dolph said:
Why are so many people so happy with irresponsible behaviour and so willing to try and 'spread the blame'?
Click to expand...

Because they are without the capacity for objective, analytical thought, and just say the first cro-magnon thought that springs into their tiny little minds. Either that or trollin'.
 
Dolph said:
There is no contribution to anything, the entire responsibility for drinking before work and all associated consequences lies with the drinking employee, not the employee who raises a concern about it.

Why are so many people so happy with irresponsible behaviour and so willing to try and 'spread the blame'?
Click to expand...

Possibly because life isn't black and white Dolph. We have no idea why the lad was drinking so early in the morning. What we do know is that he's been working a steady job for a considerable time, and was apparently the best worker there. So we can assume that there must be some sort of negative influence.
To compact whatever that is by ratting him out, unnecessarily, is imo anyway, a contribution to someone's downfall. I'm not sure what world you live in chap, but contributing to a man's downfall (by actually driving him the length of the journey to work, whilst knowing you were goign to have him fired..) seems to me to be rather callous, if not rather cowardly.

There's nothing to have stopped the OP from turning the car around and suggesting strongly that the young chap take the day off, get himself together, and learn his lesson - aside from your nonesense "committing an act of misconduct", which frankly, who gives a crap about.

Act of misconduct, christ almighty dolph, show a little compassion.
 
Dolph said:
No, I'm suggesting that anyone who pulls a sickie when they aren't sick is guilty of misconduct.
Click to expand...

That would depend entirely on how you define sickness, if it is defined as being unfit for duty then the chap was exactly that, taking sick days doesn't preclude disciplinary procedures for breach of contract anyway.

The consequences for breaching a sickness policy would not have led him to losing his job in all likelihood, and if as the OP states the employee is one of his best and this behaviour appears to be an aberration, telling the employee to remain at home and then disciplining him under the attendance at work policies would have probably been a fairer and more acceptable outcome for all parties involved.

This doesn't put any blame onto anyone but the employee, it is merely an alternative way of dealing with the situation.
 
Werewolf said:
There are basically only two serious options available if someone admits to drinking before going to work on heavy machinery - either you report them to the superior, or you tell them not to go in.

Those are the only two basic options that do not put anyone at risk of injury.
The third basic option is to ignore it, hope for the best and let him be a danger to people.

You do not let someone who has been drinking operate heavy machinery.
Click to expand...

You sir are spot on and due an apology. I had feebly presumed the third option you state above, to be one of your original two, which after re-reading your post' quite clearly was not the case. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
benneh said:
Possibly because life isn't black and white Dolph. We have no idea why the lad was drinking so early in the morning. What we do know is that he's been working a steady job for a considerable time, and was apparently the best worker there. So we can assume that there must be some sort of negative influence.
To compact whatever that is by ratting him out, unnecessarily, is imo anyway, a contribution to someone's downfall. I'm not sure what world you live in chap, but contributing to a man's downfall (by actually driving him the length of the journey to work, whilst knowing you were goign to have him fired..) seems to me to be rather callous, if not rather cowardly.

There's nothing to have stopped the OP from turning the car around and suggesting strongly that the young chap take the day off, get himself together, and learn his lesson - aside from your nonesense "committing an act of misconduct", which frankly, who gives a crap about.

Act of misconduct, christ almighty dolph, show a little compassion.
Click to expand...

An act of misconduct is enough to earn your own disciplinary hearing in a work environment. Are you really saying that the OP should have risked himself for a work colleague who had chosen to drink before work?

As for the other potential mitigation, that's not a reason to fail to report dangerous behaviour, but something to look at as part of the investigation into the issue.

Drinking alcohol when your job involves driving or operating heavy machinery is completely unacceptable behaviour, and for the safety of everyone else in the workplace, cannot be just swept away on the good hope that the irresponsible idiot involved doesn't do it again.
 
Something similar happened to me recently.

Someone where I used to work (I took voluntary redundancy) was caught fraudulently obtaining money from the company. I won't go into any more details. First instance - quiet word. 2nd instance was direct to business manager.

He is currently suspended pending investigations by HR.
 
Forde said:
100% this exactly, anyone saying otherwise is a bit thick. Also, people should remember that the employee would have probably shown signs of having imbibed alcohol to other employees and would've got the sack anyway.
Click to expand...

Most of us are not discussing where the fault lies, it obviously lies with the employee. However we are discussing alternative actions in dealing with that employee.


Because they are without the capacity for objective, analytical thought, and just say the first cro-magnon thought that springs into their tiny little minds. Either that or trollin'.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Maybe a little objectivity and analytical thought into what some of us are actually stating wouldn't go amiss.
 
Personally as I know regarding drinking in most place's when operating machinery is all most zero tolerance I would have told him to pull a sickie and I wouldn’t want it happening this again.

To be honest hindsight is lovely but I can’t see how you thought that letting the guy go to work and then informing the manager would be a good idea given that you're a team leader I would have expected you would have know the outcome.

Another thing to think of is, if you gave this guy the chance would he had just carried on drinking before work and just not tell you in future or would have taken note and not done it again. Making a guess from being a good worker as you say I would have thought he would have bucked his idea's up not done it again.

Its still a hard one but to be honest if this is the first time you have done something like this you will just have to put it down to one of those life lesions and try and forget about. Personally I wouldn’t speak to the person that was fired he will feel like his trust in you was used again him regardless of how right or wrong he was.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Are you suggesting that anyone who is unfit for work by their own action is guilty of misconduct?

.
Click to expand...

though if his 4 cans was fosters,

he may have started drinking 6 hours ago, had his last can 2 horus ago, 45 min trip to work...

could have been a large guy, who drinks all the time... possibly no booze in his system at all....

(though he may had downed 4 special bru 2 hours before the 5mins trip to work and be a non drinking tiny guy)
 
Castiel said:
That would depend entirely on how you define sickness, if it is defined as being unfit for duty then the chap was exactly that, taking sick days doesn't preclude disciplinary procedures for breach of contract anyway.

The consequences for breaching a sickness policy would not have led him to losing his job in all likelihood, and if as the OP states the employee is one of his best and this behaviour appears to be an aberration, telling the employee to remain at home and then disciplining him under the attendance at work policies would have probably been a fairer and more acceptable outcome for all parties involved.

This doesn't put any blame onto anyone but the employee, it is merely an alternative way of dealing with the situation.
Click to expand...

This does, of course, depend on whether the OP has the authority to take this course of action. (Team leader can mean many things from an employee who can take minor operational leadership decisions on the floor to someone involved in all aspects of people management. The fact that he reported it, rather than addressing it, would tend to suggest the former rather than the latter). If the OP did not have the authority to agree this course of action, then he would potentially be opening up himself to disciplinary action as well.
 
Castiel said:
Are you suggesting that anyone who is unfit for work by their own action is guilty of misconduct?

Sometimes discretion in the use of disciplinary procedures is of benefit to both the employee and the employer.
Click to expand...

Dolph said:
No, I'm suggesting that anyone who pulls a sickie when they aren't sick is guilty of misconduct in the vast majority of cases, as would be someone who recommended that course of action.

Discretion has benefits for both sides, but ultimately, discretion should apply to the consequences of the action, not the judgement of the action itself.
Click to expand...

i think the bigger point here is that if the employee had done this once and to this extent, i.e. a few cans, then this may not have been the only time nor will it be the last, irrespective of whether he is guilty of the action or the potential sickie.

i am really torn on this, on the one hand discretion would have been good, but the risk of this employee drinking again or having done this before would be at the front of my mind.

if the op had just taken the employee home, he may still drink but not tell the op next time and put peoples lives in danger.

then if management found out that the op knew about past behaviour he could face a disciplinary too. the employee if caught could easily say something like the op knew and was ok with it (i.s. suggesting that a lack of enforcement previously was acceptance of the behaviour)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom