Investigation Pending Diciplinary Action Turning Very Nasty
Discussion
In the spring of this year a close relative suffered a work related spinal injury. There was an accusation made that the injury was due to deviation from the employer's health and safety policies and my relative was suspended pending a disciplinary investigation and hearing.
My relative works in special needs social care. A resident they were walking with fell. Policy is to let them drop then give aid and seek help after they hit the ground. Catching them is against the rules as firstly you could hurt yourself and secondly if you fell with the patient whose to say you didn't cause the injury rather than the floor thus exposing the employer to litigation.
Apparently letting someone taking a seizure fall on their face is more difficult than it sounds.
Technically speaking H&S patient handling rules were breached.
When informed of this my relative asked a senior HR manager for a copy of their training records as they were certain they had never attended any patient handling training whilst with this employer and thus had never been formally trained or instructed to let someone falling drop. This was refused. In response my relative phoned a junior HR administrator and asked if they'd ping an email of their current training record. The email was sent and my relative was able to demonstrate that as an employee of this company they had never received training or instruction that they had allegedly contravened. My relative was then accused of breaching the terms of their suspension by contacting a member of staff.
After explaining that the terms and conditions of the suspension had ever been sent and thus no breach of said terms could take place my relative was informed by the employer that they had indeed been informed and in writing immediately after the suspension occurred. A letter dated accordingly appeared in the post the next day. When it was pointed out this letter was sent retrospectively the employer denied that this was the case. My relative contacted the private mail provider that had delivered the letter and by means of a cereal number at the top of the envelope was able to prove the letter was picked up from the employer's premises the day prior to receipt. This information was privileged information and the mail contractor would only provide it to subjects with the employer's email address. My relative accessed the email via an app on their personal phone.
They now not only face investigation for a patient mishandling incident but a count of contacting staff when instructed not to do so, a count of dishonestly obtaining information by deception as they had not informed the HR junior administrator they were suspended, a count of contacting a contractor of the employee when instructed not to do so and again dishonestly obtaining information by means of deception and a count of misusing company email for personal gain.
The patient mishandling incident could be brushed off but the use of language such as "dishonestly" "deception", "misuse of company emails" and "personal gain" makes my relative look like an out and out crook. Next problem is although working an an administrative/management role in the private sector this person is still a registered nurse. Dishonesty, deception and guilt of for personal gain is "striking off" material once the NMC become involved.
Where to go from here?
My relative works in special needs social care. A resident they were walking with fell. Policy is to let them drop then give aid and seek help after they hit the ground. Catching them is against the rules as firstly you could hurt yourself and secondly if you fell with the patient whose to say you didn't cause the injury rather than the floor thus exposing the employer to litigation.
Apparently letting someone taking a seizure fall on their face is more difficult than it sounds.
Technically speaking H&S patient handling rules were breached.
When informed of this my relative asked a senior HR manager for a copy of their training records as they were certain they had never attended any patient handling training whilst with this employer and thus had never been formally trained or instructed to let someone falling drop. This was refused. In response my relative phoned a junior HR administrator and asked if they'd ping an email of their current training record. The email was sent and my relative was able to demonstrate that as an employee of this company they had never received training or instruction that they had allegedly contravened. My relative was then accused of breaching the terms of their suspension by contacting a member of staff.
After explaining that the terms and conditions of the suspension had ever been sent and thus no breach of said terms could take place my relative was informed by the employer that they had indeed been informed and in writing immediately after the suspension occurred. A letter dated accordingly appeared in the post the next day. When it was pointed out this letter was sent retrospectively the employer denied that this was the case. My relative contacted the private mail provider that had delivered the letter and by means of a cereal number at the top of the envelope was able to prove the letter was picked up from the employer's premises the day prior to receipt. This information was privileged information and the mail contractor would only provide it to subjects with the employer's email address. My relative accessed the email via an app on their personal phone.
They now not only face investigation for a patient mishandling incident but a count of contacting staff when instructed not to do so, a count of dishonestly obtaining information by deception as they had not informed the HR junior administrator they were suspended, a count of contacting a contractor of the employee when instructed not to do so and again dishonestly obtaining information by means of deception and a count of misusing company email for personal gain.
The patient mishandling incident could be brushed off but the use of language such as "dishonestly" "deception", "misuse of company emails" and "personal gain" makes my relative look like an out and out crook. Next problem is although working an an administrative/management role in the private sector this person is still a registered nurse. Dishonesty, deception and guilt of for personal gain is "striking off" material once the NMC become involved.
Where to go from here?
Motive sounds like fear on their part.
How bad is the injury, are they worried that your relative may sue them for accident at work and so trying to pin blame on him. Are they insured? high excess on the policy maybe a motive.
An anonymous chat with a no-win no fee type ambulance chaser may reveal what they are exposed to. Also if goes to court, you can demand paperwork from delivery company and employer to see when it was booked/paid for.
How bad is the injury, are they worried that your relative may sue them for accident at work and so trying to pin blame on him. Are they insured? high excess on the policy maybe a motive.
An anonymous chat with a no-win no fee type ambulance chaser may reveal what they are exposed to. Also if goes to court, you can demand paperwork from delivery company and employer to see when it was booked/paid for.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 16th November 14:04
Its unlikely that your relative has a future with this company. Does the InjuryLawyer4U hold out the hope of a career ending pot of cash, in which case the regulatory body threats are meaningless.
Am fairly sure that the contracting employee is null, as they hadnt been told not to.
Am fairly sure that if they wanted your chap not to access email, their systems will allow that, so that charge is null.
Contacting the contractor is a bit more grey, as they had had the letter by that stage. You might be able to argue that it was done in order to demonstrate bad faith on the employers part, but thats at a hearing stage.
Dice have been thrown, so crack on with the injury claim, and make plentiful notes for the professional body hearing, which is likely to happen.
Am fairly sure that the contracting employee is null, as they hadnt been told not to.
Am fairly sure that if they wanted your chap not to access email, their systems will allow that, so that charge is null.
Contacting the contractor is a bit more grey, as they had had the letter by that stage. You might be able to argue that it was done in order to demonstrate bad faith on the employers part, but thats at a hearing stage.
Dice have been thrown, so crack on with the injury claim, and make plentiful notes for the professional body hearing, which is likely to happen.
Tannedbaldhead said:
In the spring of this year a close relative suffered a work related spinal injury. There was an accusation made that the injury was due to deviation from the employer's health and safety policies and my relative was suspended pending a disciplinary investigation and hearing.
My relative works in special needs social care. A resident they were walking with fell. Policy is to let them drop then give aid and seek help after they hit the ground. Catching them is against the rules as firstly you could hurt yourself and secondly if you fell with the patient whose to say you didn't cause the injury rather than the floor thus exposing the employer to litigation.
Apparently letting someone taking a seizure fall on their face is more difficult than it sounds.
Technically speaking H&S patient handling rules were breached.
When informed of this my relative asked a senior HR manager for a copy of their training records as they were certain they had never attended any patient handling training whilst with this employer and thus had never been formally trained or instructed to let someone falling drop. This was refused. In response my relative phoned a junior HR administrator and asked if they'd ping an email of their current training record. The email was sent and my relative was able to demonstrate that as an employee of this company they had never received training or instruction that they had allegedly contravened. My relative was then accused of breaching the terms of their suspension by contacting a member of staff.
After explaining that the terms and conditions of the suspension had ever been sent and thus no breach of said terms could take place my relative was informed by the employer that they had indeed been informed and in writing immediately after the suspension occurred. A letter dated accordingly appeared in the post the next day. When it was pointed out this letter was sent retrospectively the employer denied that this was the case. My relative contacted the private mail provider that had delivered the letter and by means of a cereal number at the top of the envelope was able to prove the letter was picked up from the employer's premises the day prior to receipt. This information was privileged information and the mail contractor would only provide it to subjects with the employer's email address. My relative accessed the email via an app on their personal phone.
They now not only face investigation for a patient mishandling incident but a count of contacting staff when instructed not to do so, a count of dishonestly obtaining information by deception as they had not informed the HR junior administrator they were suspended, a count of contacting a contractor of the employee when instructed not to do so and again dishonestly obtaining information by means of deception and a count of misusing company email for personal gain.
The patient mishandling incident could be brushed off but the use of language such as "dishonestly" "deception", "misuse of company emails" and "personal gain" makes my relative look like an out and out crook. Next problem is although working an an administrative/management role in the private sector this person is still a registered nurse. Dishonesty, deception and guilt of for personal gain is "striking off" material once the NMC become involved.
Where to go from here?
Sounds like the company has dropped a bMy relative works in special needs social care. A resident they were walking with fell. Policy is to let them drop then give aid and seek help after they hit the ground. Catching them is against the rules as firstly you could hurt yourself and secondly if you fell with the patient whose to say you didn't cause the injury rather than the floor thus exposing the employer to litigation.
Apparently letting someone taking a seizure fall on their face is more difficult than it sounds.
Technically speaking H&S patient handling rules were breached.
When informed of this my relative asked a senior HR manager for a copy of their training records as they were certain they had never attended any patient handling training whilst with this employer and thus had never been formally trained or instructed to let someone falling drop. This was refused. In response my relative phoned a junior HR administrator and asked if they'd ping an email of their current training record. The email was sent and my relative was able to demonstrate that as an employee of this company they had never received training or instruction that they had allegedly contravened. My relative was then accused of breaching the terms of their suspension by contacting a member of staff.
After explaining that the terms and conditions of the suspension had ever been sent and thus no breach of said terms could take place my relative was informed by the employer that they had indeed been informed and in writing immediately after the suspension occurred. A letter dated accordingly appeared in the post the next day. When it was pointed out this letter was sent retrospectively the employer denied that this was the case. My relative contacted the private mail provider that had delivered the letter and by means of a cereal number at the top of the envelope was able to prove the letter was picked up from the employer's premises the day prior to receipt. This information was privileged information and the mail contractor would only provide it to subjects with the employer's email address. My relative accessed the email via an app on their personal phone.
They now not only face investigation for a patient mishandling incident but a count of contacting staff when instructed not to do so, a count of dishonestly obtaining information by deception as they had not informed the HR junior administrator they were suspended, a count of contacting a contractor of the employee when instructed not to do so and again dishonestly obtaining information by means of deception and a count of misusing company email for personal gain.
The patient mishandling incident could be brushed off but the use of language such as "dishonestly" "deception", "misuse of company emails" and "personal gain" makes my relative look like an out and out crook. Next problem is although working an an administrative/management role in the private sector this person is still a registered nurse. Dishonesty, deception and guilt of for personal gain is "striking off" material once the NMC become involved.
Where to go from here?
k and are playing hardball to try and cover their ass. I'd say he has all the proof necessary to let it go to a tribunal.
Sounds to me like the employer is trying to pervert the course of justice or the civil equivalent if there's such a thing. They've been caught out twice and they don't like it. If anything they are the ones that should be worried about being reported to their professional standards body as they could lose their licence. I'd allude to this but don't put in writing.
Find another job
Go for it on the claim. Clear proof of lack of training. Should be 100% liable.
Find another job
Go for it on the claim. Clear proof of lack of training. Should be 100% liable.
blueg33 said:
Surely a lawyer is the next place to go.
Sausages may be an option, does the CEO have a garden?
Just dominate the stairs, etcSausages may be an option, does the CEO have a garden?
I've no legal experience but from a purely common sense perspective it's hard to imagine this going badly at tribunal
Of course maybe it's my lack of knowledge that makes it hard to imagine but best of luck to them anyway
1) get their union onto it, if in a union.
2) any investiagtion that leads to a discplinary will expose th epaper trail
3) at hearing express that training records are nul, the mistakes of the company etc tracked letter.
4) await dismissal, appeal and then tribunal.
The appeal is relative here as is the tribunal in order to get your registration back.
May be thatthe company caves in pays you off and doesn't report you to your registered body
2) any investiagtion that leads to a discplinary will expose th epaper trail
3) at hearing express that training records are nul, the mistakes of the company etc tracked letter.
4) await dismissal, appeal and then tribunal.
The appeal is relative here as is the tribunal in order to get your registration back.
May be thatthe company caves in pays you off and doesn't report you to your registered body
If as op puts it, company have no leg to stand on. If you want to really cause panic, contact the Hse and check it was reported as an accident at work. The Hse are raw evil to employers when they want to be (best intentions on their part), and they take a dim view of unreported accidents.
On the other hand, if op's mate is Carl scaife, I hope it ends badly for em!
On the other hand, if op's mate is Carl scaife, I hope it ends badly for em!
Tannedbaldhead said:
In the spring of this year a close relative suffered a work related spinal injury. There was an accusation made that the injury was due to deviation from the employer's health and safety policies and my relative was suspended pending a disciplinary investigation and hearing.
My relative works in special needs social care. A resident they were walking with fell. Policy is to let them drop then give aid and seek help after they hit the ground. Catching them is against the rules as firstly you could hurt yourself and secondly if you fell with the patient whose to say you didn't cause the injury rather than the floor thus exposing the employer to litigation.
Apparently letting someone taking a seizure fall on their face is more difficult than it sounds.
Technically speaking H&S patient handling rules were breached.
When informed of this my relative asked a senior HR manager for a copy of their training records as they were certain they had never attended any patient handling training whilst with this employer and thus had never been formally trained or instructed to let someone falling drop. This was refused. In response my relative phoned a junior HR administrator and asked if they'd ping an email of their current training record. The email was sent and my relative was able to demonstrate that as an employee of this company they had never received training or instruction that they had allegedly contravened. My relative was then accused of breaching the terms of their suspension by contacting a member of staff.
After explaining that the terms and conditions of the suspension had ever been sent and thus no breach of said terms could take place my relative was informed by the employer that they had indeed been informed and in writing immediately after the suspension occurred. A letter dated accordingly appeared in the post the next day. When it was pointed out this letter was sent retrospectively the employer denied that this was the case. My relative contacted the private mail provider that had delivered the letter and by means of a cereal number at the top of the envelope was able to prove the letter was picked up from the employer's premises the day prior to receipt. This information was privileged information and the mail contractor would only provide it to subjects with the employer's email address. My relative accessed the email via an app on their personal phone.
They now not only face investigation for a patient mishandling incident but a count of contacting staff when instructed not to do so, a count of dishonestly obtaining information by deception as they had not informed the HR junior administrator they were suspended, a count of contacting a contractor of the employee when instructed not to do so and again dishonestly obtaining information by means of deception and a count of misusing company email for personal gain.
The patient mishandling incident could be brushed off but the use of language such as "dishonestly" "deception", "misuse of company emails" and "personal gain" makes my relative look like an out and out crook. Next problem is although working an an administrative/management role in the private sector this person is still a registered nurse. Dishonesty, deception and guilt of for personal gain is "striking off" material once the NMC become involved.
Where to go from here?
Contact your "close relative", and say "oh dear, this is looking rather complicated. I think you had better sort it out yourself, it is nothing to do with me."My relative works in special needs social care. A resident they were walking with fell. Policy is to let them drop then give aid and seek help after they hit the ground. Catching them is against the rules as firstly you could hurt yourself and secondly if you fell with the patient whose to say you didn't cause the injury rather than the floor thus exposing the employer to litigation.
Apparently letting someone taking a seizure fall on their face is more difficult than it sounds.
Technically speaking H&S patient handling rules were breached.
When informed of this my relative asked a senior HR manager for a copy of their training records as they were certain they had never attended any patient handling training whilst with this employer and thus had never been formally trained or instructed to let someone falling drop. This was refused. In response my relative phoned a junior HR administrator and asked if they'd ping an email of their current training record. The email was sent and my relative was able to demonstrate that as an employee of this company they had never received training or instruction that they had allegedly contravened. My relative was then accused of breaching the terms of their suspension by contacting a member of staff.
After explaining that the terms and conditions of the suspension had ever been sent and thus no breach of said terms could take place my relative was informed by the employer that they had indeed been informed and in writing immediately after the suspension occurred. A letter dated accordingly appeared in the post the next day. When it was pointed out this letter was sent retrospectively the employer denied that this was the case. My relative contacted the private mail provider that had delivered the letter and by means of a cereal number at the top of the envelope was able to prove the letter was picked up from the employer's premises the day prior to receipt. This information was privileged information and the mail contractor would only provide it to subjects with the employer's email address. My relative accessed the email via an app on their personal phone.
They now not only face investigation for a patient mishandling incident but a count of contacting staff when instructed not to do so, a count of dishonestly obtaining information by deception as they had not informed the HR junior administrator they were suspended, a count of contacting a contractor of the employee when instructed not to do so and again dishonestly obtaining information by means of deception and a count of misusing company email for personal gain.
The patient mishandling incident could be brushed off but the use of language such as "dishonestly" "deception", "misuse of company emails" and "personal gain" makes my relative look like an out and out crook. Next problem is although working an an administrative/management role in the private sector this person is still a registered nurse. Dishonesty, deception and guilt of for personal gain is "striking off" material once the NMC become involved.
Where to go from here?
blueg33 said:
I bet the Care Quality Commission would be interested in the issues around training and record keeping
i'm sure they would not sure why this has got to the stage it has got to without the involvement of union / professional representation organisation ( 400+K of the the nursing workforce are not in a 'union' per se as the RCN is not affiliated with the TUC etc and does far more than any of the unions do )
Update. Professional assistance and advice has been sought and acted upon.
HR want to drop everything and sack relative as medically unfit for work due to a drinking problem.
Managers want to pursue everything with a vengeance.
Relative who was on statutory sick pay sick has had status changed to suspended on full pay subject to disciplinary action. This status was backdated to the time of the incident so a fistful of dollars has hit their account just in time for Xmas.
Next meeting is planned for February.
Sitting on one's arse collecting full pay may sound like living the dream. The reality is however http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
HR want to drop everything and sack relative as medically unfit for work due to a drinking problem.
Managers want to pursue everything with a vengeance.
Relative who was on statutory sick pay sick has had status changed to suspended on full pay subject to disciplinary action. This status was backdated to the time of the incident so a fistful of dollars has hit their account just in time for Xmas.
Next meeting is planned for February.
Sitting on one's arse collecting full pay may sound like living the dream. The reality is however http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Wednesday 21st December 18:34
davepoth said:
Are they really that stupid? Do they seriously think a tribunal would look at that and say "Hmm, seems legit"?
How long have they been with the company?
Less than two years. I recon they are in rabbit in headlamp mode at the possible liabilities they face rather than worried about tribunals. Various managers have kneejerked putting the company in a difficult position.How long have they been with the company?
Tannedbaldhead said:
Less than two years. I recon they are in rabbit in headlamp mode at the possible liabilities they face rather than worried about tribunals. Various managers have kneejerked putting the company in a difficult position.
Weird. The way they've done this (backdating the disciplinary) looks a bit desperate - the "correct" thing to do would have been to run the disciplinary, find no problem, and then go after the "drinking" as a separate thing. This screams "st, that didn't work, what can we do?"Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff