# Being interviewed in a disciplinary by a family member of the complainant



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

Morning - just after a quick bit of advice.

A friends son is due to have a disciplinary tomorrow because they had a row with another member of staff. He can be a little "in your face", but he's young and loves his job and really doesnt want to lose it.

He hasnt had any previous warnings, and it turns out that he has a sit down interview on Monday, but that the person interviewing him and deciding whether he should keep his job is the Aunt of the person he had a row with.

a. Is this allowed
b. Are they able to sack him if he has had no other warnings
c. What would be the best way for him to handle this.

I've offered to attend the meeting if he needs me to, but I'm not really up on employment law, so it would be good to just get a few pointers if possible. I've told him to join Unison so that he has Union backup if all goes wrong, but for example, should he state he is a member of Unison and ask for the meeting to be deferred until they provide a rep or something?

Hope that a few of you on here can help - I know there's some good advice about employment law that can be learned from some of you guys


----------



## Thora (Jun 29, 2014)

How long has he been in his job?


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

I'm not sure how long he has been in this job, but he's been in the same company for a few years, but recently relocated to a different branch of the same store. There's obviously some kind of personality clash there


----------



## Thora (Jun 29, 2014)

If he's been there more than 2 years, then they can't just sack him without going through the proper disciplinary procedure unless what he did was bad enough to constitute gross misconduct.  Has he been allowed to work between the incident and the disciplinary meeting?  Did the row involve threats of violence/actual violence?  I would get hold of the company's disciplinary procedure but I really doubt they can fire him at this meeting if he has been allowed to work since the row.


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

Unlikely that Unison will take on a pre-existing case with a new member. Typically, unions require a three month period of continuous membership before they will offer representation.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

No. He was suspended on full pay on Thursday just gone awaiting the outcome of the meeting tomorrow.

What questions do I need to ask him to make sure that I know exactly what happened in terms of noting down any threats or anything.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

torquemad said:


> Unlikely that Unison will take on a pre-existing case with a new member. Typically, unions require a three month period of continuous membership before they will offer representation.



So, *if* he is fired, he has no comeback?

Also, is it legal to have someone who has a vested interest in the outcome (a family member) doing the disciplinary? That seems a little unfair


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> No. He was suspended on full pay on Thursday just gone awaiting the outcome of the meeting tomorrow.
> 
> What questions do I need to ask him to make sure that I know exactly what happened in terms of noting down any threats or anything.



He needs to write up a full chronology of events - what was said, who said it, what were the circs leading up to the incident. Also, any previous incidents with the same individual. 

This record of events will act as an aide memoire for him and will also constitute the backbone of any statement he wishes to submit.


----------



## Thora (Jun 29, 2014)

I don't know if the family member thing is legal or not, but it does seem unfair.  Has he requested someone else do the disciplinary?

I would find out exactly what was said/done during the row.  And get hold of the company's disciplinary procedure and staff code of conduct.  My work's code of conduct specifically states that they might take action including dismissals for breaches and mentions verbal abuse.


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> So, *if* he is fired, he has no comeback?
> 
> Also, is it legal to have someone who has a vested interest in the outcome (a family member) doing the disciplinary? That seems a little unfair



If he ha less than two years employment with his current employer, he will not have protection under current legislation and may well be dismissed without a right to claim unfair/ constructive dismissal. If he has qualifying length of service and IF he is summarily dismissed, he MAY have comeback, subject to the nature of any offence and subject to an assessment of whether the company (and ACAS) procedures were correctly followed.

Re the family member taking the investigation meeting on Monday and his/ her possibly being prejudiced, can you please give more detail on the employer stats, company size, family owned etc.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

Thanks Thora and Torquemad

All advice is appreciated!


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

Thora said:


> I don't know if the family member thing is legal or not, but it does seem unfair.  Has he requested someone else do the disciplinary?
> 
> _*I would find out exactly what was said/done during the row.*_ *And get hold of the company's disciplinary procedure and staff code of conduct.*  My work's code of conduct specifically states that they might take action including dismissals for breaches and mentions verbal abuse.




^^^
this.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

Its a National Department store with about 30 branches across the UK


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

That is helpful. As a national employer and as a listed company they will almost certainly have well-documented HR policies and procedures.

Within the disciplinary procedure (and explicitly in the charge letter)  there should be an indication of entitlement to be accompanied at any meeting "by a friend who may be an employee or by a recognised officer of a TU". That is a legal obligation on the company so, if the letter does not include words to that effect, the employer has foot-faulted.

Re family member taking the meeting, this is almost certainly open to challenge, particularly if the incident involves e.g. a clash of personalities.


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

Can you please remove details of the employer name. My PM refers. Thanks.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

torquemad said:


> Can you please remove details of the employer name. My PM refers. Thanks.



Done


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

torquemad said:


> That is helpful. As a national employer and as a listed company they will almost certainly have well-documented HR policies and procedures.
> 
> Within the disciplinary procedure (and explicitly in the charge letter)  there should be an indication of entitlement to be accompanied at any meeting "by a friend who may be an employee or by a recognised officer of a TU". That is a legal obligation on the company so, if the letter does not include words to that effect, the employer has foot-faulted.
> 
> Re family member taking the meeting, this is almost certainly open to challenge, particularly if the incident involves e.g. a clash of personalities.



He hasnt had a letter. They sent him home in the afternoon, and then phoned him later to tell him to attend a disciplinary on Monday


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> He hasnt had a letter. They sent him home in the afternoon, and then phoned him later to tell him to attend a disciplinary on Monday



Ok. Monday is the investigatory meeting and will either be followed with a letter advising no further action or by a charge letter setting out the detail of the case against. If there were witnesses your friend's son should ask that these be interviewed also - particularly if they are likely to be supportive. If it was a spat involving only two people and no witnesses then it will be difficult for anything to be proven - unless the other party has physical evidence of assault.

Of course, it is just possible that the investigation meeting will allow for a finding of gross misconduct and that this might lead to summary dismissal. Without understanding the precise details, it is difficult to offer a view on this. Regardless, there will still be an entitlement to appeal.

First things first, it sound like the efficacy of the meeting convened for MOnday should be challenged on the grounds of potential lack of impartiality/ objectivity.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

Excellent work torquemad 

So, in summary I need to do the following;

1. Write down exactly what happened with times and dates
2. Confirm no letter has been sent or received
3. Confirm that the meeting is for investigatory uses only and not a dismissal/disciplinary meeting
4. Ask for meeting to be moved until such letter is sent and received (if it hasnt) and request that a non family member is the person conducting the meeting on ground of potential collusion/impartiality
5. Get witness statements from other members of staff
6. Attend further meeting after the above has been done

Is that about right?


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> Excellent work torquemad
> 
> So, in summary I need to do the following;
> 
> ...




Yes, and also request copies of company disciplinary (and grievance) policies and procedures.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 29, 2014)

Oh yes - cheers


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

Re Monday meeting panel composition, I recommend that your friend's son prepares a script that he can read from if necessary - nerves can be a bastard in formal meetings  - setting out the reasons why he is requesting a postponement of the meeting until an unrelated/ involved Chair can be found thereby ensuring openness, transparency and objectivity in the proceedings. 

Given the size of the employer it may be that they can find someone else there and then or, worst case scenario from their point of view, a one or two day postponement occurs.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 29, 2014)

torquemad said:


> Re Monday meeting panel composition, I recommend that your friend's son prepares a script that he can read from if necessary - nerves can be a bastard in formal meetings  - setting out the reasons why he is requesting a postponement of the meeting until an unrelated/ involved Chair can be found thereby ensuring openness, transparency and objectivity in the proceedings.
> 
> Given the size of the employer it may be that they can find someone else there and then or, worst case scenario from their point of view, a one or two day postponement occurs.



I completely agree.  I've done disciplinary cases myself in the past and an absolute must is that the key people involved - the person doing the investigation and the person making the decision - are independent and impartial, so no hint of a conflict of interest is appropriate.  Otherwise the fairness of the decision and the process itself is open to question.

It does seem odd that despite being suspended on full pay he hasn't had a letter outlining this, and a letter formally inviting him to an interview to make a statement.  As he is suspended they should also have provided copies of the relevant HR policies as a matter of course, as he obviously wouldn't be able to access them given he is suspended.

Finally, have you looked at any guidance ACAS publish, as that might be helpful.  Not sure if it covers disciplinary procedures though.

The situation you outline sounds a bit dodgy to me, so he might need to fight against this as it doesn't seem like they are doing this properly.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 29, 2014)

It's quite possible, unfortunately, that the best he can hope for is a generous compromise agreement, inflated by the piss-poor HR procedure so far, and an agreed reference for future employers. If he's at the beginning of a retail career that may not be too poor an outcome, either.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jun 29, 2014)

On the letter front the incident presumably only happened on Thursday. Give HR a day to wake up and that means it would have gone in the post on the Friday and only possibly have arrived Saturday or today. A letter might well be in the post.

It's HR, assuming malevolent competence is far less likely than incompetent neglect.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 29, 2014)

Bob_the_lost said:


> On the letter front the incident presumably only happened on Thursday. Give HR a day to wake up and that means it would have gone in the post on the Friday and only possibly have arrived Saturday or today. A letter might well be in the post.
> 
> It's HR, assuming malevolent competence is far less likely than incompetent neglect.



HR are certainly incompetent where I work, so you're probably right.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 29, 2014)

Double post.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 29, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> HR are certainly incompetent where I work, so you're probably right.


I am having doubts about my employers' HR operation, too. Either they're not very good, or too many decisions get made without any consultation with them. Either way, I guess it means at least that I should have a reasonable case for unfair/constructive dismissal (or perhaps just a juicy compromise agreement) should it come to that...


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 29, 2014)

They'll have sent the letter second class so it will likely appear after he's had his preliminary interview.


----------



## oryx (Jun 29, 2014)

in a company that size i would have thought they can easily get someone who is not a relative to oversee it. Sounds dodgy.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 29, 2014)

yep - get hold of copy of the disciplinary policy and quote it at them in order to have the meeting postponed. And he should def have someone with him to fight his corner.
HR departments often don't know what they are doing and will often back down as soon as you quote the rules at them - to cover their arses in case an expensive unfair dismissal case comes and bites them on the arse.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 29, 2014)

Alternatively there' s always this approach -


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 29, 2014)

If they're doing things properly then the first meeting will be a fact finding. Then they'll inform you seven days in advance in writing the charges against him and a date for the disciplinary allowing him time to organise representation. If he's walking direct into a disciplinary then they either have no procedure or are paying scant regard to it. This is where you fuck them.


----------



## torquemad (Jun 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If they're doing things properly then the first meeting will be a fact finding. Then they'll inform you seven days in advance in writing the charges against him and a date for the disciplinary allowing him time to organise representation. If he's walking direct into a disciplinary then they either have no procedure or are paying scant regard to it. This is where you fuck them.



In a nutshell.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 29, 2014)

All the stuff people have said and also, relative of the complainant, wtf? That is completely out of order in a company that size. So basically, check they're following procedure and say you're extremely unhappy with the relative carrying it out. ACAS can give phone advice to non union members I think.


----------



## Onket (Jun 29, 2014)

Yes, phoning ACAS is an excellent suggestion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2014)

Having any interview in a disciplinary context by a family member of someone involved would be in the "epically bad idea" category if anyone half-conscious in HR noticed it. Even the fact that it's been proposed already puts them on the back foot. Mentioning it somewhere higher could be a good way to get the whole thing basically dismissed.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jun 29, 2014)

I'll second the 'phone ACAS for information.
tbh, a relative conducting anything to do with this - either investigative / disciplinary - really sounds a monumentally impressive mistake, very much a case of not "good practice".


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 29, 2014)

Third for phoning ACAS here.

But as already has been pointed out, having a relative or basically someone who isn't totally independent of both individuals is a decision made of epic fail for this company, and someone must have really dropped the ball to allow this to get to even this stage. 

It says to me that the whole thing isn't been done properly, and possibly even using the company procedures (badly) as a stick to hit the individual with i.e. an intimidation tactic. If it goes ahead I see it backfiring spectacularly, and opening the company up to liability they could do without.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 29, 2014)

If they're doing things correctly and the first meeting is a fact finding then perhaps you want to brief him on this (ummm probably no time to) as you can't always insist on representation in a fact finding and this is where he's likely to flap and dig himself into a hole from which it's difficult to rescue him.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 29, 2014)

fourth for phoning ACAS.  You don't have to be a union member, and you don't have to give details like your name or your employer's name


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 30, 2014)

Could he not take his Auntie with him to this meeting?  It would be perfectly fair for him to bring his if the complainant effectively has brought theirs.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 30, 2014)

I was about to post similar to citizen 66, an investigation should take place before any mention of a disciplinary.
If it was just a disagreement with no abusive language this should end with apologies all round and be left unless there are future flare ups.
Any decent team/line manager should be able to sort without involving HR.
Also, said investigation should be carried out by a totally independent manager, definitely not a friend or family of the complainant.

Also, as said above any union usually requires a period of membership before taking on a case, but any decent steward or union lay person should offer advice.

This is why all should be in a union, you never know when the help and support of an organisation that has it's own Barristers to call on may be needed, especially in the world we work in today.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe any news on how it went?


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

Mate, its all fucked up.

So, he got a letter that said that he is being disciplined for "aggressive behaviour and foul language". The meeting was supposed to be today at three, but they cancelled it at 1.45 as the HR person was "in a meeting", so wanted to rearrange it for tomorrow, but didnt have a time so will call him tomorrow to sort out a time. He had to call them three times today to confirm it was all on, and was fobbed off each time.

I've told him not to agree a time until he has been sent the company code of conduct and to also ensure that the family member is replaced by someone impartial. It also turns out that there were no witnesses, so its a "his version against my version" scenario, hence me telling him to change the person doing the discliplinary. I need to read the code of conduct to see if what he is alleged to have done is a gross misconduct charge. I also need to get hold of his sales figures, sickness record etc really to build up a good case. He's never been in trouble before  - no verbal or written warnings.

I'm not sure if the new time has to be agreed in writing, but it seems to me that the company are totally incompetent and are looking at this as something thats a bit of a pain in the arse to handle.

I've been given some amazing advice, and am pretty sure that if we can nail down a time that I will be able to sort this out, but they just seem feckless. Sounds like someone doesnt like him was having a bad day and are trying to use their family members to get rid of him tbh.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

Some unions will take a case on knowing they'll get a new member. There's nothing legally stopping them afaik.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 30, 2014)

If there are no witnesses it is incredibly difficult to prove either way, as you say it is he said she said.  But the employer has massively put themselves on the back foot by having the Auntie of the complainant doing the fact finding - that just shows it is dodgy as hell from the very start.

It is also quite telling how they are not confirming a new date in writing, but he has had to ring up and be fobbed off.  I know for a definite fact that if you are an investigator or decision maker you book the attendance of the key people, including HR, well in advance, so they shouldn't be 'in a meeting'.  I wonder whether they've finally twigged that having the Auntie involved in such a difficult to prove case is almost certainly going to be overturned on appeal (if they do that part fairly of course)?  Hence a bit of a panic while they try to think of a way to save face and quietly drop it.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> Mate, its all fucked up.
> 
> So, he got a letter that said that he is being disciplined for "aggressive behaviour and foul language". The meeting was supposed to be today at three, but they cancelled it at 1.45 as the HR person was "in a meeting", so wanted to rearrange it for tomorrow, but didnt have a time so will call him tomorrow to sort out a time. He had to call them three times today to confirm it was all on, and was fobbed off each time.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear that, although it does sound like there's been some linecrossing going on within the HR department so perhaps internally there is something going on. If they had any sense they'd cancel the whole thing and let him go back to work immediately. 

Has he written down his version of events, so he has a record of what his side of the story is? It's well out of order that they've decided what the 'charges' are without even speaking to him, and that he still hasn't been provided with a copy of the policy. That should have come with the letter - did that ever appear?


----------



## 8115 (Jun 30, 2014)

If he is hot headed, might be worth having a quiet general word about keeping his cool even if they mess him around during the disciplinary process. Hope it works out well.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

The letter appeared, but no copy of the Code Of Conduct, so I've got him to call up and put the meeting off until a. he gets that, b. he gets the date of the new disciplinary in writing and c. confirmed that the Aunt wont be at the disciplinary. As farmerbarleymow said, I think they have realised that they've fucked up and may be trying to sweep it under the carpet.

As far as I am aware he has written everything down (but he's a young lad, and what he tells me he's done he may not have, not realising the implications). But we'll get there. I'm pretty sure that so far, everything is in his favour.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

8115 said:


> If he is hot headed, might be worth having a quiet general word about keeping his cool even if they mess him around during the disciplinary process. Hope it works out well.



He's not really hot headed. He's like a 20 year old Alan Carr (if you're picking up what I am putting down) and I dont think the complainant is very comfy in his presence...


----------



## 8115 (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> He's not really hot headed. He's like a 20 year old Alan Carr (if you're picking up what I am putting down) and I dont think the complainant is very comfy in his presence...


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

Not the smoking guy btw


----------



## free spirit (Jun 30, 2014)

> The employee may
> offer a reasonable alternative time
> within five days of the original date
> if their chosen companion cannot
> attend.


ACAS

email tonight to rearrange the meeting for a suitable time in the next 5 days, 1 days notice of a formal disciplinary meeting is not on.

Also explaining that you intend to be accompanied into the meeting should give them pause for thought, as will quoting ACAS guidance at them.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> He's not really hot headed. He's like a 20 year old Alan Carr (if you're picking up what I am putting down) and I dont think the complainant is very comfy in his presence...



I'm fully aware I may be meowing up the wrong tree here, but If you're saying what I think you're saying, the is it worth asking what led to this alleged incident?

If he reacted to homophobic abuse, or if he is being falsely accused of something as a result of someone else's homophobia, then it's the other person that's in the wrong, and the company has a legal duty to protect employees from homophobic abuse and discrimination in the same way as it has responsibilities in respect of (for example) sexual harrassment and racist abuse.

may be worth a look at stonewall's website here - includes a link to some possibly useful guidance documents.

To the best of my understanding, abuse based on perceived sexual orientation (e.g. someone thinks a colleague is gay even though they aren't) is not on either.  (I vaguely remember a thread a year or two back about someone on here who's straight but got some hassle near a gay pub one night, and the local plods did take it seriously as a potential hate crime)

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the two year qualifying period for unfair dismissal does not apply to equalities legislation.

Many employers have specific policies on equalities / discrimination in the workplace, and (quite apart from legal duties under the equalities act) there is case law for such policies legally constituting part of the terms & conditions of employment.  

ACAS will, I am sure, be up to date with such things, and most trade unions are quite switched on as regards equalities issues - many will have an equalities unit or a LGB unit - this may be at regional / national office rather than small local branch level.  I don't think there is a specific organisation that specialises in this sort of thing - 'Lesbian & Gay Employment Rights' seems to be defunct.

If none of the above is relevant, then so be it - I'd not recommend making false counter allegations and 'playing the gay card' as this may well make matters worse.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 30, 2014)

I think you're right Puddy_Tat - discrimination against perceived sexual orientation or disability or whatever is in breach of the Equality Act.  I'll have to check to make sure, but I know our conduct policy does specifically mention this so it would have been written with the legal landscape in mind.

Whatever the reason she is behaving like this in making false allegations, once it has blown over and the lad is vindicated, he should go the full on poof mode.  Just to piss her off.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 30, 2014)

Yes, perceived is illegal. So if you discriminate against someone because you think they are gay, or Muslim or whatever that is still illegal nevermind whether they are.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 30, 2014)

If you know someone who is a solicitor, get them to go along, not as legal representation but as the supporting person. It is surprising how many HR peeps will basically throw the towel in just by having someone who knows the law present even if they are not allowed to speak. I have seen it work before.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 30, 2014)

MrSki said:


> If you know someone who is a solicitor, get them to go along, not as legal representation but as the supporting person. It is surprising how many HR peeps will basically throw the towel in just by having someone who knows the law present even if they are not allowed to speak. I have seen it work before.



That is a damn good tactic.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 30, 2014)

MrSki said:


> If you know someone who is a solicitor, get them to go along, not as legal representation but as the supporting person.



Double plus like!


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

All good advice. Puddy_Tat, you've hit the nail on the head although I dont think its explicitly homophobic, its a woman older than him who probably hasnt come across this before and is finding it hard to deal with. I doubt she's had diversity training and obviously was/is uncomfortable enough to to pick on him a bit until he ranted.

FreeSpirit, thats fantastic advice.

MrSki - although I am no lawyer, I do run two businesses and can scrub up and be very professional when needed, hence me asking for advice so that I can get some kind of handle on the situation. I'm also pretty good at being rational and arguing to get the other party tied up in knots 

Farmerbarleymow - he lives his life in full on poof mode. Its all hand movements, eyerolls and "Oh My Gods". He's a lovely guy, but I can see why a middle aged woman coming across (fnarr) someone like him for the first time would be uncomfortable. Imagine Rylan Clark crossed with Alan Carr and thats kinda how he is. No excuses for the lady being like that though. Time moves on and we evolve.

All great advice. This forum is great for this kind of thing, so thanks all!


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

MrSki said:


> If you know someone who is a solicitor, get them to go along, not as legal representation but as the supporting person. It is surprising how many HR peeps will basically throw the towel in just by having someone who knows the law present even if they are not allowed to speak. I have seen it work before.


TBF, they don't even have to be present. In my current "process", every time someone has mentioned the law (we're talking 3-4 occasions at least, here), HR have folded like a four-year-old with three twos in a championship poker tournament.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> Mate, its all fucked up.
> 
> So, he got a letter that said that he is being disciplined for "aggressive behaviour and foul language". The meeting was supposed to be today at three, but they cancelled it at 1.45 as the HR person was "in a meeting", so wanted to rearrange it for tomorrow, but didnt have a time so will call him tomorrow to sort out a time. He had to call them three times today to confirm it was all on, and was fobbed off each time.
> 
> ...



They've fucked it up. He needs someone to scare them shitless now over the fact they haven't followed any procedure. Don't allow them to make up for it by them trying to correct it in hindsight. If he wants to double fuck them get himself signed off paid with stress for the next month whilst they prepare their zero defence of policy.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> They've fucked it up. He needs someone to scare them shitless now over the fact they haven't followed any procedure. Don't allow them to make up for it by them trying to correct it in hindsight. If he wants to double fuck them get himself signed off paid with stress for the next month whilst they prepare their zero defence of policy.



Quite.  It looks like they've lost the case before they even started.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

Ooh - signing off with stress would be *nasty*.

But then that might mean the other staff suffer, so I dont think I can go down that route. He might think differently though, but I'll knock that out of him


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

Then hit the aunt with a grievance.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 30, 2014)

I don't think doctors sign people off with stress at the drop of a hat. All well and good if it's necessary but just because it's largely invisible doesn't mean it's undetectable.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> Ooh - signing off with stress would be *nasty*.
> 
> But then that might mean the other staff suffer, so I dont think I can go down that route. He might think differently though, but I'll knock that out of him



It's all about favourable outcomes. I know to you it looks suss and to them it looks suss but by not dealing with the case even handedly and by the book they caused him undue stress. That doctors' report will make him fireproof; whether he chooses to stay or move on from that role it gives him the upper hand as they caused the upset professionally.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

I agree with that, but lets not put other peoples jobs at risk for one person or create an environment of fear for the other staff, as that would make him feel even worse if he felt that he was being given special treatment (and would be divisive in the workplace). I'm meeting my mate later this week who is a lawyer in employee law, and that coupled with the brilliant advice on here should arm me with enough ammo to just nip this in the bud.

Once again, many thanks for everyones input. This is what forums should be about *thumbs*


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

8115 said:


> I don't think doctors sign people off with stress at the drop of a hat. All well and good if it's necessary but just because it's largely invisible doesn't mean it's undetectable.



Are you suggesting that the threat of the loss of someone's livelihood is a relaxing situation?


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

That and pictures of cats obvs


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> They've fucked it up. He needs someone to scare them shitless now over the fact they haven't followed any procedure. Don't allow them to make up for it by them trying to correct it in hindsight. If he wants to double fuck them get himself signed off paid with stress for the next month whilst they prepare their zero defence of policy.


He could even do what I did, and get signed off then *insist* on a referral to occupational health (if the organisation has one of those). It's a great guarantor of outraged innocence...


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

8115 said:


> I don't think doctors sign people off with stress at the drop of a hat. All well and good if it's necessary but just because it's largely invisible doesn't mean it's undetectable.


No, they don't. But they know enough to recognise what stress looks like, and what an intolerable workplace situation looks like, too. At least the more clued-up ones certainly do...


----------



## 8115 (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Are you suggesting that the threat of the loss of someone's livelihood is a relaxing situation?


No. But I have had work related stress and been treated badly at work on separate occasions and they were very different experiences for me, that was the only point I was trying to make.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> I doubt she's had diversity training and obviously was/is uncomfortable enough to to pick on him a bit until he ranted.



maybe she works for this boss









and hmm at the 'get signed off with stress' thing.

bear in mind that - since most managers and HR people are clueless enough about whether their staff are any good at their jobs, and since there's the belief that references can't say anything that isn't a statistic, one of the few things that's common in references is asking how many days off sick someone has had in the last X amount of time.

Not trying to put anyone off seeking medical advice where it's needed, but just advising caution...


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> All good advice. Puddy_Tat, you've hit the nail on the head although I dont think its explicitly homophobic, its a woman older than him who probably hasnt come across this before and is finding it hard to deal with. I doubt she's had diversity training and obviously was/is uncomfortable enough to to pick on him a bit until he ranted.
> 
> FreeSpirit, thats fantastic advice.
> 
> ...


To be fair, none of us have had massive amounts of diversity training from our employers, because we know victimising others for whatever reason, be it race, sexuality, gender whatever, is wrong. 

Make sure he mentions tomorrow that this has been homophobic - or certainly homosexual-intolerant - behaviour. That should have HR begging him to drop everything.

And if she's worked a lot in retail I don't believe for a second this is the first openly gay guy she's ever met.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> He could even do what I did, and get signed off then *insist* on a referral to occupational health (if the organisation has one of those). It's a great guarantor of outraged innocence...



The only downside of shafting incompetent bosses over them not following procedures is the next time around they've done their homework a bit more thoroughly. So rinse this one while you can - plus it buys a few months of no grief without it becoming harassment.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The only downside of shafting incompetent bosses over them not following procedures is the next time around they've done their homework a bit more thoroughly. So rinse this one while you can.


That presupposes their capability to recognise homework, far less do it. Going by the performance of my Glorious Leaders throughout (so far) my sick leave, I wouldn't count on it here. The OP's mileage may vary, naturally...

ETA: FWIW, word on the street is that one team member, off sick/"on gardening leave" for the last 10 months, is communicating with the employer "only via her lawyers". I wouldn't want to identify too closely with that party, but it's a clue as to the cluelessness of our Great Leaders...


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> To be fair, none of us have had massive amounts of diversity training from our employers, because we know victimising others for whatever reason, be it race, sexuality, gender whatever, is wrong.
> 
> Make sure he mentions tomorrow that this has been homophobic - or certainly homosexual-intolerant - behaviour. That should have HR begging him to drop everything.
> 
> And if she's worked a lot in retail I don't believe for a second this is the first openly gay guy she's ever met.



You've never been to Tonbridge have you


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> No, they don't. But they know enough to recognise what stress looks like, and what an intolerable workplace situation looks like, too. At least the more clued-up ones certainly do...



My doctor signed me off with stress and gave me a month to sort myself out as he didn't have the heart to sign me off with a drink problem.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

You guys are all such shits. The most "liked" post on this thread is the one about cats


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> You've never been to Tonbridge have you


I have lived in such cosmopolitan places as Aberdeen and Redditch though 

I live in Glasgow now...


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 30, 2014)

AverageJoe said:


> You guys are all such shits. The most "liked" post on this thread is the one about cats


Well this _is_ urban...

This is what serious cat thinks about this whole thing by the way:


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I have lived in such cosmopolitan places as Aberdeen and Redditch though
> 
> I live in Glasgow now...



You win.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

8115 said:


> No. But I have had work related stress and been treated badly at work on separate occasions and they were very different experiences for me, that was the only point I was trying to make.



If he's facing a disciplinary with a bit of family bullying thrown in for good measure I'd be highly surprised if he's sleeping well at night over it so was just pointing out that the best person to discuss these feelings with is your doctor rather than suffer in silence. Not bad advice really and no need to shout charlatan at.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 30, 2014)

Ok I think I got the wrong end of what you meant.

To be fair, I remember my doctor looking at the certificate and then just saying "shall we just put "stress"?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> maybe she works for this boss
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obvs I'm putting forward an extreme - but perfectly viable - argument. Rich tapestry and all that jazz.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 30, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> To be fair, none of us have had massive amounts of diversity training from our employers, because we know victimising others for whatever reason, be it race, sexuality, gender whatever, is wrong.



are you talking about 'us' as urban 75 members or 'us' as the general public?  if the latter, then i have my doubts...



AverageJoe said:


> You've never been to Tonbridge have you



they have gays in tonbridge now?


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 30, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> are you talking about 'us' as urban 75 members or 'us' as the general public?  if the latter, then i have my doubts...
> 
> 
> 
> they have gays in tonbridge now?



Its amazing isnt it! They even had their own Pride March last year, although the police made them walk around the park and not down the High St for fear of upsetting people. Trufax


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

8115 said:


> Ok I think I got the wrong end of what you meant.
> 
> To be fair, I remember my doctor looking at the certificate and then just saying "shall we just put "stress"?


Or, in the case of my doctor, "Stress...er, work-related?"


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

8115 said:


> Ok I think I got the wrong end of what you meant.
> 
> To be fair, I remember my doctor looking at the certificate and then just saying "shall we just put "stress"?



Yeah, that's what I meant.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

A couple of weeks in Berlin on the company payroll should iron out any medical concerns and animosity I would have thought. The East is nice in the summer too.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2014)

Nice to see a disciplinary proceeding unravel before your eyes (well hopefully, but never underestimate the ability of fuckwitted bosses to plough on regardless).


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 1, 2014)

They (the employers) are going to become vulnerable purely because this is a incident between two employees and not a case of misconduct against the company by not having an investigation.
An investigation should be held as soon as possible with witnesses and views from both parties.
This investigation then decides whether there is a call for disciplinary action.
If they go down this route, they have to be give in writing seven days notice to the employee(s) affected so they can arrange either a union rep or work colleague to accompany them at the meeting.

This company's HR department are not doing their job correctly and will leave themselves wide open at any later tribunal.
I have been present in disciplinarys, where we got proceedings stopped in their tracks for having the wrong date on correspondence.
The best defence  in incidences like this I have been involved with as usually stopped after the investigation meeting with apologies, handshakes and both parties agreeing to be more tolerant.

Average Joe. you say he works in retail? He should really consider joining USDAW, they are the majority union where I work and have been quite successful in some pretty nasty actions by my current employer.

https://www.usdaw.org.uk/aboutus.aspx

and a bit of legislative info off ACAS.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2177

Good luck.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 1, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> If they go down this route, they have to be give in writing seven days notice to the employee(s) affected so they can arrange either a union rep or work colleague to accompany them at the meeting.



The letter should include all charges they face plus a copy of all the supporting paperwork relevant to the case. If that isn't provided then upon opening the disciplinary state that he faces no charges as he hasn't been Informed of any in writing and received no documentation. If they then try to wriggle you point out there's been no fact finding either. No case to answer.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 1, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The letter should include all charges they face plus a copy of all the supporting paperwork relevant to the case. If that isn't provided then upon opening the disciplinary state that he faces no charges as he hasn't been Informed of any in writing and received no documentation. If they then try to wriggle you point out there's been no fact finding either. No case to answer.



Totally correct.

I have draws full of copies of paperwork with charges from my past victories and losses over the years. From one recent incident I have over thirty pages of statements and evidence against me/us, got a final written, because I wouldn't grass!
They were going to sack all twenty of us!
Result I think.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 1, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> are you talking about 'us' as urban 75 members or 'us' as the general public?  if the latter, then i have my doubts...
> 
> 
> 
> they have gays in tonbridge now?


Us as in u75 members (the people on this thread).


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 22, 2015)

I am in a similar situation as the OP, however I work for a Family business, and last week me and the General manager had a heated disagreement after he was flippant regarding non-payment of twenty hours from my fortnightly pay, I swung for him but made no contact. Now I am suspended on full pay pending disciplinary which is to be chaired by none other than his Brother. I have worked for the company for 2 years, there has been no problem with my conduct up until last week, in fact for a time I was a permanent fixture in the kitchen, because no other chefs were trusted or capable of doing the jobs I was doing. In short I am asking if the size of business in relation to the OP's case will affect how the disciplinary is held.


----------



## cesare (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> I am in a similar situation as the OP, however I work for a Family business, and last week me and the General manager had a heated disagreement after he was flippant regarding non-payment of twenty hours from my fortnightly pay, I swung for him but made no contact. Now I am suspended on full pay pending disciplinary which is to be chaired by none other than his Brother. I have worked for the company for 2 years, there has been no problem with my conduct up until last week, in fact for a time I was a permanent fixture in the kitchen, because no other chefs were trusted or capable of doing the jobs I was doing. In short I am asking if the size of business in relation to the OP's case will affect how the disciplinary is held.



The Acas Code of Practice (disciple and grievances at work) sets out how discipline should work in an organisation. Here it is: http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/a/4/Discipline-and-grievances-Acas-guide.pdf Note that the rules for small organisations are set out in Appendix 1. The Code forms the basis for what is considered "fair" and would be taken into account by an Employment Tribunal. Failure to follow the Code can result in an Employment Tribunal's increasing or reducing any award they make.

Your contract of employment/written statement of terms and conditions should tell you what the rules are for your company or refer you to where you can find the disciplinary rules. You have employment protection against unfair dismissal as you have worked for the company for 2+ years. It's difficult in a small family business to have completely objective people holding the disciplinary hearings but if you feel that he was unfairly biased then that would be one of the grounds that you have to appeal if he applies sanctions against you.

I suggest that you provide him with a copy of the Code before the hearing and ask him if he will be following it - this will bring it to his attention if he's not aware of it. Then make sure you prepare well including mitigating circumstances which you've mentioned about your pay. Include any witnesses and you're allowed to have someone to accompany you (a feloow colleague or a TU rep). You should do this if possible.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> I am in a similar situation as the OP, however I work for a Family business, and last week me and the General manager had a heated disagreement after he was flippant regarding non-payment of twenty hours from my fortnightly pay, I swung for him but made no contact. Now I am suspended on full pay pending disciplinary which is to be chaired by none other than his Brother. I have worked for the company for 2 years, there has been no problem with my conduct up until last week, in fact for a time I was a permanent fixture in the kitchen, because no other chefs were trusted or capable of doing the jobs I was doing. In short I am asking if the size of business in relation to the OP's case will affect how the disciplinary is held.


Do they have disciplinary processes written down? If so, they should have sent you a copy.

Do you have a contract? What is in there about witholding of pay from wages?

When you say two years, do you mean more than 2 years have passed or are you rounding up (it's almost two years)?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 22, 2015)

cesare was better than my post


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 22, 2015)

My employer has asked for witness statements from the 2 co workers present at the time of the incident, trouble is, they wont comply with him as I have kept my mouth shut and kept them in a job in the past. The incident last week is completely out of character for me(I usually stop the fights, not start them), however my unblemished disciplinary record is not being taken into account. I have only received one text message from my Head Chef informing me that I was sacked from last Sunday, however when I went to the restaurant to pick up my uniform etc... was taken into the office and told I am suspended. I have had no more contact from my employers since, I feel in limbo as I have been offered another job, but can't start. The missing wages is for work I did in the previous pay period, the owners of the establishment used two different clocking in systems, one where we would clock in through an ipad(a completely flawed system, if the system went down before work you cant clock in) and good old pen and paper. My grievance was mainly that some weeks they went off ipad, some weeks paper and the GM(on word of co-workers) put our wages through on the last minute as he had spent most of the week on the wrong side of the bar, so put the wages through straight from the ipads, meaning almost all workers lost a number of hours.


----------



## cesare (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> My employer has asked for witness statements from the 2 co workers present at the time of the incident, trouble is, they wont comply with him as I have kept my mouth shut and kept them in a job in the past. The incident last week is completely out of character for me(I usually stop the fights, not start them), however my unblemished disciplinary record is not being taken into account. I have only received one text message from my Head Chef informing me that I was sacked from last Sunday, however when I went to the restaurant to pick up my uniform etc... was taken into the office and told I am suspended. I have had no more contact from my employers since, I feel in limbo as I have been offered another job, but can't start. The missing wages is for work I did in the previous pay period, the owners of the establishment used two different clocking in systems, one where we would clock in through an ipad(a completely flawed system, if the system went down before work you cant clock in) and good old pen and paper. My grievance was mainly that some weeks they went off ipad, some weeks paper and the GM(on word of co-workers) put our wages through on the last minute as he had spent most of the week on the wrong side of the bar, so put the wages through straight from the ipads, meaning almost all workers lost a number of hours.



So the pay is still an ongoing issue? Are they using Fourth?

The fact that the Head Chef has already told you you've been sacked will give you another ground for appeal if they dismiss you ie that the outcome was pre-ordained and the disciplinary hearing was a sham and therefore unfair. Don't delete that text.

Make sure you mention your unblemished disciplinary record in the hearing even if they say they're not taking it into account.

The suspension should be paid, by the way. You'll need to double check that.


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 22, 2015)

What is fourth?


----------



## cesare (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> What is fourth?


It's a personnel and payroll system (including rotas sent to mobiles and tablets) often used in the hospitality industry.


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 22, 2015)

That must be it, all payslips are sent to my e-mail account. The pay is an ongoing issue. It is not the first time it has happened also.


----------



## cesare (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> That must be it, all payslips are sent to my e-mail account. The pay is an ongoing issue. It is not the first time it has happened also.


There are other systems but Fourth is very popular. They need to sort out the pay issue pronto. Is there someone internal that's responsible for it?


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 22, 2015)

only the GM who has made the complaint and his brother who is chairing my disciplinary.


----------



## cesare (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> only the GM who has made the complaint and his brother who is chairing my disciplinary.


I suggest you write down exactly what hours you've done (and whether recorded on ipad or paper), what you've been paid for and what the discrepancy is. Then email it to the GM asking for it to be resolved within 7 days.


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 22, 2015)

thankyou very much, will do.


----------



## cesare (Feb 22, 2015)

Chef82pnefc said:


> thankyou very much, will do.


Let us know what happens. Good luck.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 23, 2015)

Best of luck chef


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 27, 2015)

Ok, so I have received two e-mails this morning, which should be payday for a week holiday, the discrepancy from previous pay period and my usual payy for time suspended. However, one is a payslip paying me 22.81 hours holiday, and the other? my p45. 
	 This has thrown me much for the time being, have e-mailed the owner asking if this is my final pay? and, if I was going to get a hearing at all. Heard nothing official so far and it's coming up 2 weeks. The p45 is an indication I am no longer employed there which is brilliant for me, as I have three jobs in the pipeline I can now accept one of them, but is this legal?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 27, 2015)

Probably not.

I dunno, swinging for someone could be gross misconduct which you can fire someone for but they might not have done it properly.

Just take the other job, sounds like you are well off out of there.


----------



## Pingu (Feb 27, 2015)

the question isn't so much as "is it legal" I guess you already know the answer to that but

"what are you going to do about it?"

swinging for someone I would say pretty much is gross misconduct but the dismissal should be handled in the proper manner. be wary though that they don't go for an assault complaint against you if you take it to tribunal


----------



## Chef82pnefc (Feb 27, 2015)

My head is a bit mashed trying to take in the twist in proceedings, I shall go and seek further advice, I know its wrong after having swotted up a bit over the past couple of weeks whilst preparing to defend myself as best as I could. I just need to calm down right now and look to the next step.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 27, 2015)

Just move on mate. Sometimes we make mistakes. 
Going through the rigmarole of a tribunal and all that shit ain't with the hassle in my experience


----------



## Duncan2 (Feb 27, 2015)

friedaweed could be right.You might win the case on the basis that the employer didn't follow a fair procedure (Polkey)but get nominal compensation because the Tribunal decide you to some extent were the cause of your own misfortune?


----------



## iamwithnail (Mar 6, 2015)

Rigmarole and cost, as I believe you now need to pay about a grand to file a complaint once it's past arbitration.  That said, you might get a 'fuck off and leave us alone' (the technical term!) settlement if you threaten /initiate an ET claim.   I'd ask about appeals procedure, appeal, get it turned down, then file the initial ET papers.  They might give you defense costs to go away.


----------

