Incredibly long disciplinary investigation….
Discussion
A friend of a friend of a friend has basically been suspended with pay for Half a year now, and sounds like they haven’t even started the investigation at least not officially yet.
He’s public service so you’d expect the government (lol yeah I know) to have actually started investigating by now.
I’m interested as a union rep more than anything to see how a tribunal would see this. He isn’t even real sure why he’s suspended yet, at least not in an official capacity
He’s public service so you’d expect the government (lol yeah I know) to have actually started investigating by now.
I’m interested as a union rep more than anything to see how a tribunal would see this. He isn’t even real sure why he’s suspended yet, at least not in an official capacity
So your friend's friend's friend has been told not to come to work but has continued to be paid? Personally, I'd not question this too much!
I'm not certain that you've been told the whole truth though. A reason would have been given, official or not. How do they know that no investigation has started?
I'm not certain that you've been told the whole truth though. A reason would have been given, official or not. How do they know that no investigation has started?
StevieBee said:
So your friend's friend's friend has been told not to come to work but has continued to be paid? Personally, I'd not question this too much!
I'm not certain that you've been told the whole truth though. A reason would have been given, official or not. How do they know that no investigation has started?
Yeah in my experience of disciplinary you never get the whole truth even when explaining to the person in question that I need to know the whole truth and I’m not using it against them the employer is. I'm not certain that you've been told the whole truth though. A reason would have been given, official or not. How do they know that no investigation has started?
Like I said it is a distant connection, I probably know some of the posters on here better than I know him I’m interested as a rep to get opinions though particularly as I’ve never had the opportunity to see how a tribunal progresses as it’s always been pushed to a full time official when it gets to that level. I’m simply a work place rep.
For what I know is that there was a police investigation but no action taken by the police so no criminal charge and nothing for the employer to take further there. I would hazard a guess that their reputation says they’re not clean as a whistle in the workplace but you can’t hold that against them if you’ve not disciplined/questioned it prior.
What I’m really wondering is how a tribunal judge would view such a long time period? As far as I’m aware even if they’ve told them what they’re investigating 6 months is an abnormally long time.
NuckyThompson said:
For what I know is that there was a police investigation but no action taken by the police so no criminal charge and nothing for the employer to take further there. I would hazard a guess that their reputation says they’re not clean as a whistle in the workplace but you can’t hold that against them if you’ve not disciplined/questioned it prior.
What I’m really wondering is how a tribunal judge would view such a long time period? As far as I’m aware even if they’ve told them what they’re investigating 6 months is an abnormally long time.
The length of time relates to the nature of the issue. If we're looking at complex financial fraud it may well take months or even years to determine what - if anything - was done. If it's a case of nicking stationery then not so much. A judge will be concerned more that proper process was applied than the length of time it has taken (within reason). What I’m really wondering is how a tribunal judge would view such a long time period? As far as I’m aware even if they’ve told them what they’re investigating 6 months is an abnormally long time.
Not knowing anything about the circumstances but the Police (Criminal)investigation could have gone on for a number of months and it's very likely that the company or organisation whoever they are have not started their own investigation until the criminal side completed which would explain the extended period.
I know next to nothing about the civil/ employment side of investigations but I wonder if the burden of proof for disciplinary matters is lower where for criminal matters an offence has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in employment matters is it on the balance or probabilities? I don't know but it could affect the outcome of the individual.
I know next to nothing about the civil/ employment side of investigations but I wonder if the burden of proof for disciplinary matters is lower where for criminal matters an offence has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in employment matters is it on the balance or probabilities? I don't know but it could affect the outcome of the individual.
NuckyThompson said:
criminal investigation was sorted a couple of months ago at least as far as I'm aware as they'd searched his house and taken his phone etc which they've now got back.
he was/is border security so I'm assuming its drugs related.
Thread instantly takes on a new dimension, buckling in for the ride. he was/is border security so I'm assuming its drugs related.
To be honest in this context it's not a long time.
In terms of how long an investigation should take company procedures will always be wooly and quote swiftly quickly without putting an actual time.
Anyone caught up in this needs to refer them selves to this occupational health department and put in a complaint too, that way they are seen to be doing something, if it ever got to a tribunal.
In terms of how long an investigation should take company procedures will always be wooly and quote swiftly quickly without putting an actual time.
Anyone caught up in this needs to refer them selves to this occupational health department and put in a complaint too, that way they are seen to be doing something, if it ever got to a tribunal.
echazfraz said:
Are his employer not just waiting til the criminal investigation is complete before they start theirs wrt breaking the rules at work?
this....they can not do anything until the criminal investigation is completed and formal result obtained.
Once that has been achieved the employee will need to go through the internal process and the result given. and then dismissed or other disciplinary given.
I knew a guy a while back, was remanded and the company he worked for knew this, their HR called him in for a meeting and as he was in jail he could not attend. company did it again and then dismissed him.
hes lucky hes still being paid so he is.
ruggedscotty said:
this....
they can not do anything until the criminal investigation is completed and formal result obtained.
.
Why do you say this? they can not do anything until the criminal investigation is completed and formal result obtained.
.
The Employer has a different standard of proof for any such issues. In addition an employer does not have to follow what the police do i.e. the police may say NFA but an employer can still terminate.
Jasandjules said:
ruggedscotty said:
this....
they can not do anything until the criminal investigation is completed and formal result obtained.
.
Why do you say this? they can not do anything until the criminal investigation is completed and formal result obtained.
.
The Employer has a different standard of proof for any such issues. In addition an employer does not have to follow what the police do i.e. the police may say NFA but an employer can still terminate.
example someone is accused of having child porn on a PC it is investigated. during invesitgation employer suspends employee as they are working with children..... cant sack them as they do not know if pc had porn or not....
employer has no juristiction on home PC... etc. but if person is found with it then they can be dismissed from the job.etc. you can see how this will go.
ruggedscotty said:
many issues - if the police are investigating and the situation is out with work, but involves work....
example someone is accused of having child porn on a PC it is investigated. during invesitgation employer suspends employee as they are working with children..... cant sack them as they do not know if pc had porn or not....
employer has no juristiction on home PC... etc. but if person is found with it then they can be dismissed from the job.etc. you can see how this will go.
Employer can carry out a reasonable investigation and come to a conclusion. example someone is accused of having child porn on a PC it is investigated. during invesitgation employer suspends employee as they are working with children..... cant sack them as they do not know if pc had porn or not....
employer has no juristiction on home PC... etc. but if person is found with it then they can be dismissed from the job.etc. you can see how this will go.
If that conclusion is it is more likely than not that child porn is on the laptop/home pc then they can dismiss.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff