Disciplinary Investigation
Discussion
Hi all,
Would really appreciate some views on the following scenario:
- letter outlining allegations (incidents were May 2020) and investigation commencing received July 2020.
- investigation interview 1, October 2020, attended but HR had not provided the evidence. They apologised and interview rescheduled.
- interview 2, December 2020. Attended. TU rep who lives in a rural village had internet problems so meeting cancelled due to disconnections, poor quality audio etc.
Review completed to determine if employee obfuscating. Held that wasn’t. Employee in a busy post throughout and obtained good feedback, end year review etc.
Employee raises comprehensive grievance February 2021. No action or even a meeting.
- interview 3, late February 2021. Completed, questions answered over a period of several hours. Employee submitted a written response to the allegations covering matters in detail (around 7 pages). This went through allegations and provided explanation.
- employee raises further grievance in April 2021 that the first grievance had not been progressed and investigating officer was not looking for evidence that supported both sides.
- investigation report completed June 2021 and passed to an HR officer to decide whether case to answer.
- July 2021, HR officer mistakenly says that the person deciding if case to answer will be in touch to arrange disciplinary hearing but then corrects this to say no decisions have been made after TU raised concerns that part of the process where employee formally informed of this outcome had not taken place.
- mid September 2021, HR make contact with employee to advise that the hr officer deciding whether there is a case to answer or not requires more information on a specific point so the original investigating officer will be in touch to arrange a further interview.
After an investigation has completed, is it acceptable for the investigating officer to complete another interview? The hr officer (who in this process decides if there is a case to answer) has already had sight of the interview notes, a comprehensive written response and a completed IO report.
It seems wrong to then go and ask for more information? I feel this would be acceptable but for the fact that investigation already concluded. Surely follow up questions should have been raised at that stage?
The acas code confirms that after an investigation is completed the IO should have no further involvement as this gives rise to perception of bias.
What do you think? To re-cap, investigation commenced 16 months ago and no charges brought. Grievance(s) raised 7 months ago and no meeting arranged or process initiated.
Now 7 months after last investigation interview, written response and 3 months after investigation report completed - they want to interview again and ask more questions.
Would really appreciate thoughts. Thanks in advance.
Would really appreciate some views on the following scenario:
- letter outlining allegations (incidents were May 2020) and investigation commencing received July 2020.
- investigation interview 1, October 2020, attended but HR had not provided the evidence. They apologised and interview rescheduled.
- interview 2, December 2020. Attended. TU rep who lives in a rural village had internet problems so meeting cancelled due to disconnections, poor quality audio etc.
Review completed to determine if employee obfuscating. Held that wasn’t. Employee in a busy post throughout and obtained good feedback, end year review etc.
Employee raises comprehensive grievance February 2021. No action or even a meeting.
- interview 3, late February 2021. Completed, questions answered over a period of several hours. Employee submitted a written response to the allegations covering matters in detail (around 7 pages). This went through allegations and provided explanation.
- employee raises further grievance in April 2021 that the first grievance had not been progressed and investigating officer was not looking for evidence that supported both sides.
- investigation report completed June 2021 and passed to an HR officer to decide whether case to answer.
- July 2021, HR officer mistakenly says that the person deciding if case to answer will be in touch to arrange disciplinary hearing but then corrects this to say no decisions have been made after TU raised concerns that part of the process where employee formally informed of this outcome had not taken place.
- mid September 2021, HR make contact with employee to advise that the hr officer deciding whether there is a case to answer or not requires more information on a specific point so the original investigating officer will be in touch to arrange a further interview.
After an investigation has completed, is it acceptable for the investigating officer to complete another interview? The hr officer (who in this process decides if there is a case to answer) has already had sight of the interview notes, a comprehensive written response and a completed IO report.
It seems wrong to then go and ask for more information? I feel this would be acceptable but for the fact that investigation already concluded. Surely follow up questions should have been raised at that stage?
The acas code confirms that after an investigation is completed the IO should have no further involvement as this gives rise to perception of bias.
What do you think? To re-cap, investigation commenced 16 months ago and no charges brought. Grievance(s) raised 7 months ago and no meeting arranged or process initiated.
Now 7 months after last investigation interview, written response and 3 months after investigation report completed - they want to interview again and ask more questions.
Would really appreciate thoughts. Thanks in advance.
Further info:
I am in two minds whether it’s a case of looking for enough info to charge or whether it’s about ensuring (at least appearances) of a reasonable investigation.
However, it’s not like I haven’t provided sufficient information already as have provided a lot of material and gone to the interview.
If we were still at investigation stage I would agree to it but feel it’s not appropriate for the decision maker to go back to IO etc and seek this further interview.
In terms of the overall timescale (16 months) this exceeds the average timescale within the org (start to finish of a disciplinary) of 4 months. I haven’t even been charged at this point after 16 months. Does this prescribe at some point? I appreciate there might not be a black and white rule but feel 16 months is excessive. It’s not a complex matter. I reported some social media posts. It was held they were a breach of a range of policies but I’m being investigated for reporting these vexatiously.
They allege it’s vexatious and helped the complainer (who also works in HR) raise the complaint that my concern was vexatious prior to the investigation into her conduct being completed.
It’s not vexatious as their conduct was held to be a breach of social media policy and disciplinary action could be brought against them. The report finding this was also redacted but have seen a copy.
Union have got legal support but all too slow and indecisive as they say that simply doing an investigation isn’t detriment enough to bring a claim. However, if I am dismissed then will be whistleblower detriment and unfair dismissal claim.
The problem is I actually like my job, current manager and have in the last 16 months had a good review etc. The issues here are a grudge from HR (I feel).
I don’t know whether to go to this new interview or just refer to my last interview, written evidence etc.
Thanks for comments so far. Appreciate further thoughts. As you can imagine, this is 16 months of stress which has made me feel suicidal at points. Thanks in advance.
I am in two minds whether it’s a case of looking for enough info to charge or whether it’s about ensuring (at least appearances) of a reasonable investigation.
However, it’s not like I haven’t provided sufficient information already as have provided a lot of material and gone to the interview.
If we were still at investigation stage I would agree to it but feel it’s not appropriate for the decision maker to go back to IO etc and seek this further interview.
In terms of the overall timescale (16 months) this exceeds the average timescale within the org (start to finish of a disciplinary) of 4 months. I haven’t even been charged at this point after 16 months. Does this prescribe at some point? I appreciate there might not be a black and white rule but feel 16 months is excessive. It’s not a complex matter. I reported some social media posts. It was held they were a breach of a range of policies but I’m being investigated for reporting these vexatiously.
They allege it’s vexatious and helped the complainer (who also works in HR) raise the complaint that my concern was vexatious prior to the investigation into her conduct being completed.
It’s not vexatious as their conduct was held to be a breach of social media policy and disciplinary action could be brought against them. The report finding this was also redacted but have seen a copy.
Union have got legal support but all too slow and indecisive as they say that simply doing an investigation isn’t detriment enough to bring a claim. However, if I am dismissed then will be whistleblower detriment and unfair dismissal claim.
The problem is I actually like my job, current manager and have in the last 16 months had a good review etc. The issues here are a grudge from HR (I feel).
I don’t know whether to go to this new interview or just refer to my last interview, written evidence etc.
Thanks for comments so far. Appreciate further thoughts. As you can imagine, this is 16 months of stress which has made me feel suicidal at points. Thanks in advance.
I can’t advise on the legalities of their investigation but from a layman’s perspective it sounds like a crock of old s
t. Is this a small family business?
Can your manager not flag this disciplinary with more senior HR management or their own management? This behaviour by HR staff must surely be bad for general morale
Whilst there are no set timescales for grievances, they should be responded to ‘without unreasonable delay’
Hang in there. This too will pass
t. Is this a small family business?Can your manager not flag this disciplinary with more senior HR management or their own management? This behaviour by HR staff must surely be bad for general morale
Whilst there are no set timescales for grievances, they should be responded to ‘without unreasonable delay’
Hang in there. This too will pass
Edited by oldbanger on Monday 20th September 00:13
Dig your heels in.
They either don't understand their own procedures or are unable to comply with them.
If you like your job and have support of your manager then hang on for the long run and the only person who will find themselves looking for alternative employment is the HR person who has raised this and continues to obfuscate process through serial ineptitude.
In 5 years time you'll still be there and it will all be forgotten.
They either don't understand their own procedures or are unable to comply with them.
If you like your job and have support of your manager then hang on for the long run and the only person who will find themselves looking for alternative employment is the HR person who has raised this and continues to obfuscate process through serial ineptitude.
In 5 years time you'll still be there and it will all be forgotten.
A vexatious compluant is defined...
... As one that is pursued, regardless of its merits, solely to harass, annoy or subdue somebody; something that is unreasonable, without foundation, frivolous, repetitive, burdensome or unwarranted.
They'll find it almost impossible to prove it was vexatious if it was found to be upheld.
Unless they have very clear evidence of you falling out with said person previously? Have you complained about them before?
Proving motivation is really difficult without very very strong evidence. Especially if your complaint was upheld.
I would be escalating it personally. That worry for for that length of time is detrimental to your mental wellbeing. It is also determental to the safety culture of the organisation. Report a valid concern get in trouble - not cool.
... As one that is pursued, regardless of its merits, solely to harass, annoy or subdue somebody; something that is unreasonable, without foundation, frivolous, repetitive, burdensome or unwarranted.
They'll find it almost impossible to prove it was vexatious if it was found to be upheld.
Unless they have very clear evidence of you falling out with said person previously? Have you complained about them before?
Proving motivation is really difficult without very very strong evidence. Especially if your complaint was upheld.
I would be escalating it personally. That worry for for that length of time is detrimental to your mental wellbeing. It is also determental to the safety culture of the organisation. Report a valid concern get in trouble - not cool.
layercake123 said:
Senior management within department were supportive and tried to get it concluded more quickly, wrote supportive statement etc. However, then met with HR and afterwards said they could no longer intervene.
Not a small business - public sector which is frustrating given the cost.
Are they suggesting that what you’ve done constitutes ‘gross misconduct’? Not a small business - public sector which is frustrating given the cost.
The time frame of the investigation strikes me that those involved are either incompetent or can’t be bothered to chase it up.
If it’s not of gross misconduct level then it all seems a bit pointless. Companies can pretty much do what they want below gross misconduct level as it is very rare for anything less than that be taken to tribunal.
The only downside to them really is losing the respect of their employees etc if they’re seen to discipline with no real grounds.
I’m a union representative and I’d usually say there is normally some level of guilt in most disciplinary although I’ve seen a few where it’s obvious the company have gone looking for something to discipline someone on to give them the boot.
As we’re on an anonymous forum, would you say there is some grounds for an investigation into your behaviour? The way I’m reading it is that you raised a concern about a social media post and the company aren’t happy that you did because there isn’t strong enough grounds to punish that person. But I can’t see why that warrants disciplining you unless they think your action was malicious?
Feel free to PM me if you want, I’ve done quite a few disciplinary meetings in my workplace
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff