Investigation Pending Diciplinary Action Turning Very Nasty
Discussion
As desperate as the personal situation may be a business has every right to run it's business like this and dismiss people who can't perform. This normally falls under the banner of capability.
As long as a correct process is carried out there seem to be legitimate grounds for dismissal.
As long as a correct process is carried out there seem to be legitimate grounds for dismissal.
OP,
At the risk of sounding like a complete weapon...
Is your relative alright, or are they a complete nightmare? Removing toxic employees can be near impossible - and they sometimes sue you. I have a colleague in my wider team that's pure poison. Honestly, we'd be 3 employees larger if it wasn't for her constant t
ttery. We're trying everything to get rid but struggling, and she's likely to sue for an injury that simply never happened. The HSE have even investigated (at significant cost) the root cause of this injury that causes extreme pain, but not a holiday clubbing in benidorm whilst off on sick...
I know nothing of your relative, but you do - so is the company being a total bunch of arse, or is your relative one of "them"? Accusing someone of being an alky is kind of a big call!
At the risk of sounding like a complete weapon...
Is your relative alright, or are they a complete nightmare? Removing toxic employees can be near impossible - and they sometimes sue you. I have a colleague in my wider team that's pure poison. Honestly, we'd be 3 employees larger if it wasn't for her constant t
ttery. We're trying everything to get rid but struggling, and she's likely to sue for an injury that simply never happened. The HSE have even investigated (at significant cost) the root cause of this injury that causes extreme pain, but not a holiday clubbing in benidorm whilst off on sick...I know nothing of your relative, but you do - so is the company being a total bunch of arse, or is your relative one of "them"? Accusing someone of being an alky is kind of a big call!
hidetheelephants said:
If the employer's revision/rewriting of history can be laid out as evidence at a tribunal they'll get their pants pulled down.
It would need to be a protected characteristic as the reason for dismissal given the less than two years' service - the back injury might count but you'd need proper advice for that.
Some Gump said:
OP,
At the risk of sounding like a complete weapon...
Is your relative alright, or are they a complete nightmare? Removing toxic employees can be near impossible - and they sometimes sue you. I have a colleague in my wider team that's pure poison. Honestly, we'd be 3 employees larger if it wasn't for her constant tttery. We're trying everything to get rid but struggling, and she's likely to sue for an injury that simply never happened. The HSE have even investigated (at significant cost) the root cause of this injury that causes extreme pain, but not a holiday clubbing in benidorm whilst off on sick...
I know nothing of your relative, but you do - so is the company being a total bunch of arse, or is your relative one of "them"? Accusing someone of being an alky is kind of a big call!
Oh they're an alcohol all right. A real one. A successfully recovering one who fell off the wagon whilst subject to disciplinary action. The injury was very much a genuine injury. Prior to the accident they were a good employee but are now completely off the rails.At the risk of sounding like a complete weapon...
Is your relative alright, or are they a complete nightmare? Removing toxic employees can be near impossible - and they sometimes sue you. I have a colleague in my wider team that's pure poison. Honestly, we'd be 3 employees larger if it wasn't for her constant t
ttery. We're trying everything to get rid but struggling, and she's likely to sue for an injury that simply never happened. The HSE have even investigated (at significant cost) the root cause of this injury that causes extreme pain, but not a holiday clubbing in benidorm whilst off on sick...I know nothing of your relative, but you do - so is the company being a total bunch of arse, or is your relative one of "them"? Accusing someone of being an alky is kind of a big call!
edc said:
As desperate as the personal situation may be a business has every right to run it's business like this and dismiss people who can't perform. This normally falls under the banner of capability.
As long as a correct process is carried out there seem to be legitimate grounds for dismissal.
Problem for the employer is their employee was injured catching a falling resident of a care facility. They initially tried to deal with potential liabilities by disciplining the employee for a failure to adhere to the company's health and safety policies which is fair enough.As long as a correct process is carried out there seem to be legitimate grounds for dismissal.
Problem number one is that the employee had never received the relevant casualty handling training.
The company then refused the employee access to their training record (reasonable or any way justifiable?) When the employee obtained those records by email from a junior member of the HR staff who they had requested documents from by phone the employer took further disciplinary action accusing the employee of breaching the terms of their suspension.
Problem number two for the employer is no letter was sent to the employee.
What a staff member did next to address this was particularly stupid. They sent a backdated letter to my relative stating the terms and conditions of their
suspension.
When the employee contacted the private mail carrier and obtained the location collection and delivery dates of the letter and prove they had not been informed of the terms and conditions of their suspension the employer continued to act aggressively by means of disciplinary action by accusing the employee of obtaining the information by deception and dishonestly misusing company emails.
Now my relative accepts the view of the HR manager that they should be let go on the grounds of ability given their current health issues. What they are not going to tolerate is accusations, that their managers refuse to drop, of deception, and dishonesty and misuse of company emails for personal gain.
Yes there are grounds for dismissal based on capability but that is not what they are trying to dismiss my relative for and the employer is a country mile away from having carried out the correct processes.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Oh they're an alcohol all right. A real one. A successfully recovering one who fell off the wagon whilst subject to disciplinary action. The injury was very much a genuine injury. Prior to the accident they were a good employee but are now completely off the rails.
Well that sucks balls big time. Hope your relative manages to beat their issue, and if they were dry and a good worker during their employment, that the employer doesn't get to dick them over.Tribunal sounds like the only option to be honest. Some seriously large institutions/companies screw up basic employment stuff so don't rely on anything they say. I have a decent track record of helping colleagues whom were on the receiving end of similarly rubbish treatment albeit with different circumstances. If they're not a union member, I would suggest some hours reading the relevant legislation, some legal advice after that, and tribunal. Getting off alcohol is the key though, otherwise they'll be screwed because they won't be in a fit state to fight this, and with such a case against their name, they'll probably become unemployable.
The employee or those around him who may be encouraging or recommending any actions should really consider whether on balance pursuing something is worthwhile. If the person is already stressed and pre-occuppied it sounds like they have much more important things to sort out. Do not under-estimate how stressful it is to go all the way through a process like this. I have supported a couole of people from their employee side but normally am on the employer side. Is it really better for the person to have this dragged out over the course of several months and the better part of over a year? Can they afford to lodge a claim? Do they want to be grilled about any events? Weigh all this up against a possible outcome. The money will be paltry. I would see it as a success if you can manoeuvre the situation where there is a settlement agreement. This will remove all the stressors relating to employment, protect any reputation still going forward and give you a clean start to focus on what is really needed.
edc said:
The employee or those around him who may be encouraging or recommending any actions should really consider whether on balance pursuing something is worthwhile. If the person is already stressed and pre-occuppied it sounds like they have much more important things to sort out. Do not under-estimate how stressful it is to go all the way through a process like this. I have supported a couole of people from their employee side but normally am on the employer side. Is it really better for the person to have this dragged out over the course of several months and the better part of over a year? Can they afford to lodge a claim? Do they want to be grilled about any events? Weigh all this up against a possible outcome. The money will be paltry. I would see it as a success if you can manoeuvre the situation where there is a settlement agreement. This will remove all the stressors relating to employment, protect any reputation still going forward and give you a clean start to focus on what is really needed.
This is exactly what my relative wants. Not their job back, not compensation. Just to leave the company with a clean record as no longer medically capable of carrying out their contracted tasks. The problem is they won't leave until the management drop their accusations of what is basically gaining privileged information by deceit for personal gain. This is also what HR suggest as a way round the impass but senior management won't let it go.
As someone else suggested earlier, if I were your relative I'd be contacting ACAS, as this sounds very much like attempted constructive dismissal. In such instances the trick is to get your counter grievance in before dismissal, as if submitted after it shall potentially take years going through a tribunal.
Update. February disciplinary meeting has been postponed till March. HR are known to want my relative out the door using "unfit to carry out contracted duties due to poor health". My relative would happily agree to this. Their legal representative feels this is a reasonable outcome. For some reason the service management team will not let go of the gaining privileged information for personal gain by deceit accusations My relative refuses to leave until they feel they are cleared of any accusation of dishonesty.
They haven't worked for almost a year now and are still receiving full pay.
They haven't worked for almost a year now and are still receiving full pay.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Update. February disciplinary meeting has been postponed till March. HR are known to want my relative out the door using "unfit to carry out contracted duties due to poor health". My relative would happily agree to this. Their legal representative feels this is a reasonable outcome. For some reason the service management team will not let go of the gaining privileged information for personal gain by deceit accusations My relative refuses to leave until they feel they are cleared of any accusation of dishonesty.
They haven't worked for almost a year now and are still receiving full pay.
Cashback! Being paid to mind your own business whilst management wish for something they'll never get agreement to seems like an impasse that favours your relative, or it does provided they aren't drinking their pay packet.They haven't worked for almost a year now and are still receiving full pay.
edc said:
If your relative is happy with the current status quo then carry on but there is always an option to just resign.
They would if the management team dropped the accusations of dishonesty.Bearing in mind my relative, their legal representation and HR all agree that a dismissal based on health grounds is a reasonable solution it's incredible that they won't let this go.
Tannedbaldhead said:
They would if the management team dropped the accusations of dishonesty.
Bearing in mind my relative, their legal representation and HR all agree that a dismissal based on health grounds is a reasonable solution it's incredible that they won't let this go.
Sometimes you can't second guess stubbornness. Normally I see it on the employee side. To state the obvious you need some sort of communication/discussion/negotiation whether direct or through a mediator or facilitator to keep the situation moving. Perhaps the HR team there could make that suggestion if you push them.Bearing in mind my relative, their legal representation and HR all agree that a dismissal based on health grounds is a reasonable solution it's incredible that they won't let this go.
The management team here have backed themselves into a hole and through an utter lack of understanding the law, don't know how to get out of it
Your relative can't go to tribunal unless he has 2 years service which - with all these suspensions, he may get to!
The company have clearly failed to follow their own procedures and this would be grounds to lose a tribunal - but he'll never get there. However a chat with the the HSE about the HASAW implications here may help as the injury sustained - if it resulted in a period off work of more than 7 days should have been reported under RIDDOR - it could also be postulated that your relative's return to drinking was caused by the treatment they received, where the employers took no notice of their duty of care towards a person they recruited who (presumably) they knew was a recovering alcoholic
If this is how they treat their staff it doesn't bode well for people in their care
Your relative can't go to tribunal unless he has 2 years service which - with all these suspensions, he may get to!
The company have clearly failed to follow their own procedures and this would be grounds to lose a tribunal - but he'll never get there. However a chat with the the HSE about the HASAW implications here may help as the injury sustained - if it resulted in a period off work of more than 7 days should have been reported under RIDDOR - it could also be postulated that your relative's return to drinking was caused by the treatment they received, where the employers took no notice of their duty of care towards a person they recruited who (presumably) they knew was a recovering alcoholic
If this is how they treat their staff it doesn't bode well for people in their care
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff