Accused of Serious Misconduct at Work - disciplinary pending

[jumpinjackstar]

EFA

Edited by jumpinjackstar on Monday 26th July 21:05

[Gummy Sagoo]

st is st, no matter what colour it is.

[beast22]

[Papa Hotel]

Reading your OP, it seems you equate Englishness with not being of an ethnicity other than white. I'd say your racist tendencies have been noted from above... Oops.

[benny 61]

I feel for you pal, you've got to be so carefull what you say these days its getting rediculous. Bullying at work and the like is a joke.

[pilchardthecat]

jumpinjackstar said:

So how do you think the best way of defending this is?

My natural inclination would be to recommend that you be frank, honest and use your history of fairness as evidence of your good nature, and so forth, thus building a picture of your character that exposes the lie.

The danger with this is that as you say, some of these regulations end up being used to persecute decent folk.

Is there evidence that the person you said was st is incompetent (which is what you meant)? You need to make it appear unreasonable for the person who complained to interpret your comment in a way other than that you intended.

[jumpinjackstar]

Papa Hotel said:

Reading your OP, it seems you equate Englishness with not being of an ethnicity other than white. I'd say your racist tendencies have been noted from above... Oops.

That's your opinion and I'm not sure how you come to it. I live and work in a big city - I'm not so blind as to realise that not being non-white doesn't mean you're not British.

All I said was that I've a long history is employing people who aren't English, which is fact.

[Rollcage]

So, an agency sends you a van load of workers who are less than optimal and decides to defend it by playing the race card?

Nice, and rather telling.


How seriously does your HR department take this sort of thing? Is it likely to be an exercise to keep the guy quiet, or are they seriously after blood?

[jumpinjackstar]

EFA

Edited by jumpinjackstar on Monday 26th July 21:06

[Plotloss]

Hold up, lets say for a moment I'm a ginger one armed jewish black lesbian with learning difficulties (Met recruiters wet dream).

If I call a car a house does that make it a house?

No, it doesn't.

If someone non white says something racist it is?

fk off, that's a completely fking backwards point of view that is itself racist.

If they can't spot that glaring fking irony on their own, I'd be inclined to to fking turn up to the meeting.

s.

[jumpinjackstar]

Rollcage said:

So, an agency sends you a van load of workers who are less than optimal and decides to defend it by playing the race card?

Nice, and rather telling.


How seriously does your HR department take this sort of thing? Is it likely to be an exercise to keep the guy quiet, or are they seriously after blood?

Absolutely.

If it's conduct they want to discipline me on, then fine. I shouldn't swear and I accept that. But even a formal warning is a bit unjust in my eyes. Said complainant swore a lot. There's also a culture of swearing that's been allowed to happen. So as I see it, you can't allow somebody to do this, then all of a sudden put your foot down and deem it to be unacceptable all of a sudden. I'm in my 30's for god's sake. I'm old enough to swear.

[Pothole]

What's his real beef with you? Did you turn him down?

But seriously, stupid thing to say, but we've all said similar I'm sure. Just a shame this fool has a rod up him about it on this occasion.

[jumpinjackstar]

Plotloss said:

Hold up, lets say for a moment I'm a ginger one armed jewish black lesbian with learning difficulties (Met recruiters wet dream).

If I call a car a house does that make it a house?

No, it doesn't.

If someone non white says something racist it is?

fk off, that's a completely fking backwards point of view that is itself racist.

If they can't spot that glaring fking irony on their own, I'd be inclined to to fking turn up to the meeting.

s.

You're coming to my meeting?! ;-)

Yep, it's like I'm indefensible, because as they keep telling me - it's his perception that counts, so if he found it racially offensive, then it must be.

Would they still feel the same if I was black? I doubt it, which is racist in itself.

[Trabant]

I've come across this sooo many times in the last few years. Unfortunately you have to be really careful what you say at work now. I think you should just turn up to the hearing, pretend to be vaguely interested in what they have to say, then take the inevitable "verbal warning" with a large pinch of salt. Then look for another job somewhere else. When you find suitable employment get a reference from the HR department. Then tell them what a bunch of ing s they are and get on with your day.

[pilchardthecat]

jumpinjackstar said:

pilchardthecat said:

jumpinjackstar said:

So how do you think the best way of defending this is?

My natural inclination would be to recommend that you be frank, honest and use your history of fairness as evidence of your good nature, and so forth, thus building a picture of your character that exposes the lie.

The danger with this is that as you say, some of these regulations end up being used to persecute decent folk.

Is there evidence that the person you said was st is incompetent (which is what you meant)? You need to make it appear unreasonable for the person who complained to interpret your comment in a way other than that you intended.

Cheers.

I have been totally honest with them. I've even gone so far to say that I've said similar comments on numerous occasions regarding the staff he employs, irrespective of their background. However, my comments are only based on their poor performance, lateness, attendance etc etc.

He's only dialed in on the one occassion, which happens to be about some asians. I know I've said it about Polish, Czech and Latvian staff he's employed.

I've tried to make his comment appear to be unreasonable, but I just get told that it's how he perceives it that's important, and he thought it was racist.

I'm not a legal professional, but i'm not convinced that it could possibly be as absolute as that. I suspect you might get somewhere if you can demonstrate that you've made identical comments about all sorts of other incompetent staff he's provided of a wide variety of ethnic persuasions, and that you think he's either being unreasonable in claiming that's his perception, or that he has some alterior motive for doing so.

If it were solely about his perception, regardless of whether or not it's reasonable, there is no balance to the thing, and no limit to who could complain or for what.

The final argument, is that all these false accusations and misuses only serve to undermine the valuable system that's there to protect people who are genuinely discrimiated against, so your accuser is a .

[peterbredde]

jumpinjackstar said:

Hello,

I'm a regular poster on the forums here, but would prefer to keep my identity cloaked on this one, given its nature.

Following an investigation meeting, I've been accused of misconduct for a comment I made to a colleague. Said colleague doesn't work for the same company as me - he was an on-site manager for the agency staff we have.

Said comment is along the lines of 'where'd you get this pile of sh*t from' in respect of his staff. I've openly admitted to making this comment.

Problem is, he's said he found this comment to be racially offensive. Apparently this comment referred to a group of Asians. Said person who found this offensive is black.

Intent to racially offend was absolutely not the case. I'm wise enough to realise that in such cases, intent is irrelevant - it's how a person perceives the comment that's the crux... Whilst I admit the comment isn't particularly professional of me, or of reasonable conduct, both of which I've admitted, I do not accept that it was racially charged. However, i still get the typical HR response of 'sorry, that's how he perceived it', hence the upcoming disciplinary in a week.

I've a long history of employing people who are anything but English.

So how do you think the best way of defending this is?

Regards,

What exactly is the offence? Does it relate to referring to employees in a derogatory manner or is it solely related to your alleged 'racist' comment. What is your previous disciplinary record?

If the offence relates to alleged 'racist' remarks then I would imagine they've got a pretty difficult job to do to prove that the word 'st' in this sense is racially motivated. I just can't see how they would achieve this. I just wouldn't lose a moments sleep over that.

If the case is based around anyhting else then they must have told you exactly what the nature of the 'offence' is for the proceedings to carry any weight whatsoever. If they have not been clear with you about the offence then you can quite easily turn it against them.

[jumpinjackstar]

peterbredde said:

jumpinjackstar said:

Hello,

I'm a regular poster on the forums here, but would prefer to keep my identity cloaked on this one, given its nature.

Following an investigation meeting, I've been accused of misconduct for a comment I made to a colleague. Said colleague doesn't work for the same company as me - he was an on-site manager for the agency staff we have.

Said comment is along the lines of 'where'd you get this pile of sh*t from' in respect of his staff. I've openly admitted to making this comment.

Problem is, he's said he found this comment to be racially offensive. Apparently this comment referred to a group of Asians. Said person who found this offensive is black.

Intent to racially offend was absolutely not the case. I'm wise enough to realise that in such cases, intent is irrelevant - it's how a person perceives the comment that's the crux... Whilst I admit the comment isn't particularly professional of me, or of reasonable conduct, both of which I've admitted, I do not accept that it was racially charged. However, i still get the typical HR response of 'sorry, that's how he perceived it', hence the upcoming disciplinary in a week.

I've a long history of employing people who are anything but English.

So how do you think the best way of defending this is?

Regards,

What exactly is the offence? Does it relate to referring to employees in a derogatory manner or is it solely related to your alleged 'racist' comment. What is your previous disciplinary record?

If the offence relates to alleged 'racist' remarks then I would imagine they've got a pretty difficult job to do to prove that the word 'st' in this sense is racially motivated. I just can't see how they would achieve this. I just wouldn't lose a moments sleep over that.

If the case is based around anyhting else then they must have told you exactly what the nature of the 'offence' is for the proceedings to carry any weight whatsoever. If they have not been clear with you about the offence then you can quite easily turn it against them.

The case is that they feel there's a case to answer regarding my conduct.

Yes swearing is poor conduct. But they continually asked me whether I could see how this comment could be perceived to be racist. I kept saying no. I think this pi*sed them off.

I want them to be absolutely clear next week whether the offense I'm being disciplined for is because it's racist, or because it's poor conduct.

And no, I haven't been disciplined in the past.

[jumpinjackstar]

Oh, and the offense concerns my conduct and behavior in respect to this comment. They've not specifically said whether it relates solely to referring to people in a derogatory matter, or because it could be deemed to be racially offensive, or both.

[pilchardthecat]

jumpinjackstar said:

they continually asked me whether I could see how this comment could be perceived to be racist. I kept saying no. I think this pi*sed them off.

Keep saying no. Under no circumstances should you accept that it's reasonable for anyone to interpret your comments as racially motivated, and that anyone who claims to must be either unreasonable or have an alterior motive.

They are trying to push you into a corner.

[peterbredde]

jumpinjackstar said:

peterbredde said:

jumpinjackstar said:

Hello,

I'm a regular poster on the forums here, but would prefer to keep my identity cloaked on this one, given its nature.

Following an investigation meeting, I've been accused of misconduct for a comment I made to a colleague. Said colleague doesn't work for the same company as me - he was an on-site manager for the agency staff we have.

Said comment is along the lines of 'where'd you get this pile of sh*t from' in respect of his staff. I've openly admitted to making this comment.

Problem is, he's said he found this comment to be racially offensive. Apparently this comment referred to a group of Asians. Said person who found this offensive is black.

Intent to racially offend was absolutely not the case. I'm wise enough to realise that in such cases, intent is irrelevant - it's how a person perceives the comment that's the crux... Whilst I admit the comment isn't particularly professional of me, or of reasonable conduct, both of which I've admitted, I do not accept that it was racially charged. However, i still get the typical HR response of 'sorry, that's how he perceived it', hence the upcoming disciplinary in a week.

I've a long history of employing people who are anything but English.

So how do you think the best way of defending this is?

Regards,

What exactly is the offence? Does it relate to referring to employees in a derogatory manner or is it solely related to your alleged 'racist' comment. What is your previous disciplinary record?

If the offence relates to alleged 'racist' remarks then I would imagine they've got a pretty difficult job to do to prove that the word 'st' in this sense is racially motivated. I just can't see how they would achieve this. I just wouldn't lose a moments sleep over that.

If the case is based around anyhting else then they must have told you exactly what the nature of the 'offence' is for the proceedings to carry any weight whatsoever. If they have not been clear with you about the offence then you can quite easily turn it against them.

The case is that they feel there's a case to answer regarding my conduct.

Yes swearing is poor conduct. But they continually asked me whether I could see how this comment could be perceived to be racist. I kept saying no. I think this pi*sed them off.

I want them to be absolutely clear next week whether the offense I'm being disciplined for is because it's racist, or because it's poor conduct.

And no, I haven't been disciplined in the past.

If they haven't told you exactly why they are disciplining you then they can't discipline you legitimately. Let them trip themsleves up. But be careful - if they make a legitimate allegation against you then you need to prepare for it. They can't just say there is a case to answer regarding conduct - they have to specific about what elements of your conduct they feel are problematic. Otherwise it a case of:

"I dont like you"

"Why"

"I just dont like you"

It stands for fk all.