According to the court, there is support for several serious allegations that the Police Authority directs against the police officer, writes Police Gazette.
This concerns, among other things, that he has publicly associated with his criminally charged brother both before and after the employer ordered him to stop doing so. Furthermore, the police officer is said to have brought family members to a part of the police station that is a protected object and had a business engagement in a company where another criminal person was involved.
Took a stand for the police
The Police Union represented the employee, as they considered the dismissal to be unfair. This with reference to the man being open about his brother living a troubled life and reporting the business engagement as a sideline. He is also said to have tried to terminate it when he realized the criminal connections.
However, according to the union, the employer had not shared what emerged in the security screening of the man when the union decided to represent him. It was not until during the proceedings that further information came to light.
"Working in the dark"
"We are working in the dark, the employer must show us what they have as grounds for dismissal, we need knowledge to make decisions about when we should represent a member," writes Katharina von Sydow, chairman of the Police Union, to TT.
The Labor Court sided with the employer. It finds that the police officer has misconducted himself to such an extent that he seriously neglected his duties according to the employment contract, and that the dismissal was therefore justified.
The Police Union believes that the work with security screenings needs to change and that it must be possible to take part in what is held against one and it must be possible to appeal a security screening.
"On December 5, a government inquiry on this very issue will be presented, and we hope it will lead to a change," writes Katharina von Sydow.
