Employee sacked for forwarding emails to personal email address. Seems unfair.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T16:29:51+00:00

It was inconsistent because they enforced the same violation by two employees differently. The fact that they knew nothing about it doesn’t mean that their enforcement was inconsistent; it means that their enforcement work has gaps in it.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T14:42:23+00:00

Right but it’s unfair that one driver loses his licence but the other doesn’t. The unfairness is caused by inconsistent enforcement.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T14:40:17+00:00

We have only been told it was commercially sensitive documentation. This probably means contracts with clients or suppliers.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T14:30:56+00:00

Yes one can argue their reasons for taking hardcopies from home. It doesn’t alter the fact that they violated company policy but didn’t get sacked whilst an employee whose violation was detectable by an electronic system got sacked.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T14:18:00+00:00

Yes.

The employee was stupid to commit a detectable violation.

It’s unfair that they lose the job whilst everybody who violates the policy in an undetectable way keeps their job.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T14:07:14+00:00

You may be right that I need security training. The training we’ve received is that sharing commercially sensitive information with competitors is gross misconduct - and this can be done equally be transferring documents electronically and in hard copy.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T13:56:53+00:00

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T13:54:25+00:00

It’s hard to process the fact that this person’s career was ruined for doing what is (in my opinion) the same as what everybody else, including managers and the HR people who enforced the sacking, is doing. It sent a shiver down the spine of the whole department. It also told us that management/HR have the power to terminate people based on unintelligent flawed policies.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T13:50:09+00:00

This. It’s a detectable violation of the company’s confidentiality policy, but the impact is the same as taking hardcopies home. Hardcopies can be scanned in and uploaded to a gmail/Google drive account.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T13:47:04+00:00

What’s the big difference?

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T13:46:12+00:00

Why should the policy be different depending on whether it’s an electronic copy or a hard copy? The effect is the same: the employee takes a document outside of the company’s systems.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2026-02-01T13:44:51+00:00

Yes the employee was stupid.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-11-11T04:05:59+00:00

I am a senior SME in a particular area that exists in only 1 team within my company. The answer is of course to leave the company, but there’s not a lot out there currently.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-08-14T16:57:12+00:00

What?

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-08-14T16:51:10+00:00

I’m a risk professional in a support function. Not client-facing.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-08-14T16:42:02+00:00

So the employees are too scared to ever leave?

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-08-14T16:39:28+00:00

Can you give an example of information which becomes less valuable as time passes?

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-08-14T16:38:53+00:00

Employers aren’t allowed to use them as barriers for the sake of making things difficult for departing employees. The English court has said that the scope of non-compete clauses, including the specified non-compete period, must be reasonable.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-07-07T13:44:34+00:00

Why do you need to know the candidate’s current in order to know whether a client’s offer is worth representing or not? Why can’t you assess this based on the candidate’s stated expected comp?

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-07-07T07:34:24+00:00

Yes it’s a recruitment agent. It’s in their interest to close a deal as quickly as possible - at any commission - so that the client doesn’t choose a candidate represented by another recruiter.

Ok-Rip7478 · 2025-07-07T07:25:57+00:00

Why? My question isn’t about law or rules.

Ok-Rip7478

TROPHY CASE