There was insufficient evidence to prove that K had committed the offence. On the balance of probability, it was unlawful to dismiss him on this ground.
Reputational concerns can be treated as separate to the original case; however, in that case, the employer school must give notice to K of the ground upon which dismissal may be sought. The notice must be expressed clearly. K should be able to understand the allegation the school makes.
In these circumstances, the dismissal was unfair in that it relied on a ground of dismissal that was absent from the complaint and for which there was insufficient notice. The decision went back to the Head of Services decision that there was not enough evidence to prove K was responsible for the indecent images, but decided to dismiss him anyway.
This was seen as unfair. Clearly, reputational damage was an important concern for the school given the nature of the charge and their responsibility towards children, but the intensity of the reputational damage lessened when it was indicated that there was no plan to prosecute K. The full case can be read here. This case is indeed of an extreme nature due to the abhorrent nature of the accusation, and the setting of a school. It goes to show that in law there are always many intertwined components that must be explored for the best decision to be made.
Of course, everyone must have a fair chance to contest any decision made against them — but on the other hand employers have a responsibility to protect the reputation of their establishments for the good of all the other employees. On the other hand, if what one person did is really bad and what the other person did is not so bad, then the organization has some discretion about how to enforce the rules.
But only if your own actions can be justified or are truly not that bad. You need a reasonable position based on your own actions before comparing your situation to how others were treated.
In an internal employment disciplinary investigation, there is no hearsay in the legal sense. All of this is valid and important information and is useful in an investigation of workplace harassment or conflict. It happens all the time. I would hope there would be additional inquiry even if there is no formal investigation, especially for a termination.
You mentioned investigations and inquiries. It also depends on why the policy is not being administered consistently. The best thing I can say without knowing more is to get some help before raising any employment concern. If not, then find a friendly manager or someone you can trust who has experience dealing with workplace conflict and get some advice. HR should be and often is caring and concerned about whatever employees bring them.
But if its a personality conflict and everyone is behaving badly, then escalating the situation can just create more drama and distraction. At-will employment means that employers do not need to establish cause or give notice before firing an employee.
That being said, it is against the law for an employer to fire or retaliate against an employee for discussing or filing a complaint about a violation of their protected rights. Is it legal to be fired from a job for no reason? Washington is an at-will employment state. Businesses may fire any employee at any time, for any or no reason, as long as they are not violating any employee protection laws.
Main Menu Search financialpost. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. We apologize, but this video has failed to load. Try refreshing your browser, or tap here to see other videos from our team. Email Address There was an error, please provide a valid email address.
Thanks for signing up! While oil prices are surging, Canadian crude is getting cheaper. David Rosenberg: Our ranking finds Canada second frothiest housing market in the world. Diane Francis: The problem with electric cars. Alberta is on the verge of another boom — will it be more sustainable this time around? Jeremy Grantham says U.
This Week in Flyers.
0コメント