Subject Access Request
Discussion
Under what grounds can a company refuse to release the recording of a disciplinary hearing the person was involved?
The meeting was recorded and initially there was an agreement that the audio would be shared. Afterwards the company changed it's mind and has used various differing excuses for not releasing the audio.
Even after submitting numerous written requests and then a subject access request, the company continue to refuse to release the audio. They have provided a transcript, but the contents of the transcript are said to be very inaccurate.
Under what grounds can the company refuse to supply the audio to the person involved?
The meeting was recorded and initially there was an agreement that the audio would be shared. Afterwards the company changed it's mind and has used various differing excuses for not releasing the audio.
Even after submitting numerous written requests and then a subject access request, the company continue to refuse to release the audio. They have provided a transcript, but the contents of the transcript are said to be very inaccurate.
Under what grounds can the company refuse to supply the audio to the person involved?
Driver101 said:
Under what grounds can a company refuse to release the recording of a disciplinary hearing the person was involved?
Data protection. If the discussion mentioned others it could be claimed that the release of the recording could breach their privacy or adversely affect them in some way.
If the discussion included mention of trade secrets or commercially sensitive information, or that of customers or members of the public.
In these cases, a redacted transcription should be provided instead.
StevieBee said:
Data protection.
If the discussion mentioned others it could be claimed that the release of the recording could breach their privacy or adversely affect them in some way.
If the discussion included mention of trade secrets or commercially sensitive information, or that of customers or members of the public.
In these cases, a redacted transcription should be provided instead.
It didn't contain any of that information. If the discussion mentioned others it could be claimed that the release of the recording could breach their privacy or adversely affect them in some way.
If the discussion included mention of trade secrets or commercially sensitive information, or that of customers or members of the public.
In these cases, a redacted transcription should be provided instead.
What was discussed in detail was the company's health and safety breaches, evidence the disciplinary action was malicious and premeditated after the employee reported serious health and safety breaches.
Edited by Driver101 on Thursday 19th June 23:25
Driver101 said:
StevieBee said:
Data protection.
If the discussion mentioned others it could be claimed that the release of the recording could breach their privacy or adversely affect them in some way.
If the discussion included mention of trade secrets or commercially sensitive information, or that of customers or members of the public.
In these cases, a redacted transcription should be provided instead.
It didn't contain any of that information. If the discussion mentioned others it could be claimed that the release of the recording could breach their privacy or adversely affect them in some way.
If the discussion included mention of trade secrets or commercially sensitive information, or that of customers or members of the public.
In these cases, a redacted transcription should be provided instead.
What was discussed in detail was the company's health and safety breaches, evidence the disciplinary action was malicious and premeditated after the employee reported serious health and safety breaches.
Edited by Driver101 on Thursday 19th June 23:25
Driver101 said:
Under what grounds can the company refuse to supply the audio to the person involved?
If the company recorded it then they will have scant grounds to refuse to release any copy (redacted or otherwise). I assume things were said that the company does not want on record. The other question then is did anyone take handwritten notes?
This is potentially sailing into a constructive dismissal situation for the employee.
The employee believes he was dismissed due to whistleblowing. He disclosed very serious health and safety breaches.
The disciplinary hearing was recorded at his request. He wasn't invited to an investigation, for an unrelated incident, and was caught off guard. Before the disciplinary procedure he submitted a written complaint about being being setup and the minutes of the setup being completely false.
The company can't get their story straight for the reasons of withholding the recording. The latest excuse is they believe the person will edit the audio. Their excuses seem desperate and make no sense.
The person did take their own minutes during the hearing. They are adamant that the transcript provided to him changes events, incidents, and quotes of the hearing. He took a colleague to the hearing too.
The company has been accused of endangering the lives of their staff, and covering it up. They are also accused of falsifying all the documents to dismiss the employees. This was discussed during the recorded hearing.
The disciplinary hearing was recorded at his request. He wasn't invited to an investigation, for an unrelated incident, and was caught off guard. Before the disciplinary procedure he submitted a written complaint about being being setup and the minutes of the setup being completely false.
The company can't get their story straight for the reasons of withholding the recording. The latest excuse is they believe the person will edit the audio. Their excuses seem desperate and make no sense.
The person did take their own minutes during the hearing. They are adamant that the transcript provided to him changes events, incidents, and quotes of the hearing. He took a colleague to the hearing too.
The company has been accused of endangering the lives of their staff, and covering it up. They are also accused of falsifying all the documents to dismiss the employees. This was discussed during the recorded hearing.
To clarify, his position is the timeline is:
1. He raises H&S issues
2. He is then subjected to a disciplinary hearing (the basis of which we currently do not know)
3. He is then dismissed (I assume a Gross Misconduct issue mysteriously arose)
4. He now seeks the recording of the disciplinary hearing
5. That request is denied.
OR is is that 2 takes place first and then 1 follows i.e. he is invited to a disciplinary hearing wherein GM is alleged and he then raises H&S issues?
1. He raises H&S issues
2. He is then subjected to a disciplinary hearing (the basis of which we currently do not know)
3. He is then dismissed (I assume a Gross Misconduct issue mysteriously arose)
4. He now seeks the recording of the disciplinary hearing
5. That request is denied.
OR is is that 2 takes place first and then 1 follows i.e. he is invited to a disciplinary hearing wherein GM is alleged and he then raises H&S issues?
Raising the very serious health and safety issues came first. He raised these issues along with a colleague with the HR manager. The HR manager agreed things were wrong and promised to escalate matters. HR then changed stance and wouldn't communicate about the meeting or release their minutes.
The employee was seriously injured a month or so afterwards. He blames the company for their safety standards causing the accident.
He was asked to come into work for a chat. There are numerous requests and they all look informal. He didn't know he was walking into an investigation.
He was dismissed for gross misconduct. He wasn't wearing some basic PPE that was neither the reason for the accident, or his injuries. All the other employees regularly fail to wear the same PPE. The investigation fails to mention anything about the serious long-term injuries and focusses on a more minor injury they felt they could blame the employee.
He was given less than 2 days notice for the disciplinary hearing. He wasn't prepared and noticed many issues afterwards.
He requested the recording of the disciplinary hearing. The company keep refusing to release that.
He didn't notice that other documents were missing including the main investigator input and the second investigation. When they were requested the company couldn't find them.
He requested numerous things like emails and the company hasn't provided anything.
The employee was seriously injured a month or so afterwards. He blames the company for their safety standards causing the accident.
He was asked to come into work for a chat. There are numerous requests and they all look informal. He didn't know he was walking into an investigation.
He was dismissed for gross misconduct. He wasn't wearing some basic PPE that was neither the reason for the accident, or his injuries. All the other employees regularly fail to wear the same PPE. The investigation fails to mention anything about the serious long-term injuries and focusses on a more minor injury they felt they could blame the employee.
He was given less than 2 days notice for the disciplinary hearing. He wasn't prepared and noticed many issues afterwards.
He requested the recording of the disciplinary hearing. The company keep refusing to release that.
He didn't notice that other documents were missing including the main investigator input and the second investigation. When they were requested the company couldn't find them.
He requested numerous things like emails and the company hasn't provided anything.
Does it make much difference if it is Scotland, or England?
Initially a senior HR director accepted his appeal and promised to investigate. She then ghosted him.
He took the case up with ACAS and the company ignored ACAS initially. They finally offered an appeal hearing after the 6 week reconciliation period. The certificate had already been granted.
The appeal was to be chaired by the director that direct accusations were made that he was behind the dismissal.
One of the other major incidents was that before any disciplinary action was taken a disciplinary policy was accidentally given to him. It had the names of people facing disciplinary action and the outcome. He was earmarked for dismissal ahead of any disciplinary action.
The company claims it is normal to consider and plan ahead for the outcomes.
Also he's well beyond the normal window for going to the tribunal. He was seriously injured and struggling with severe anxiety. He wasn't able to take it forward at the time.
The employment tribunal has accepted his late request, but the company are trying to get it stuck out.
Initially a senior HR director accepted his appeal and promised to investigate. She then ghosted him.
He took the case up with ACAS and the company ignored ACAS initially. They finally offered an appeal hearing after the 6 week reconciliation period. The certificate had already been granted.
The appeal was to be chaired by the director that direct accusations were made that he was behind the dismissal.
One of the other major incidents was that before any disciplinary action was taken a disciplinary policy was accidentally given to him. It had the names of people facing disciplinary action and the outcome. He was earmarked for dismissal ahead of any disciplinary action.
The company claims it is normal to consider and plan ahead for the outcomes.
Also he's well beyond the normal window for going to the tribunal. He was seriously injured and struggling with severe anxiety. He wasn't able to take it forward at the time.
The employment tribunal has accepted his late request, but the company are trying to get it stuck out.
Edited by Driver101 on Friday 20th June 19:45
Bonefish Blues said:
Jasandjules said:
Ok on the face of it he has grounds to raise this as a whistleblowing claim.
I suppose the question is what is he intending to do about it? If he wants to take it to Tribunal then get him to message me, I can assist.
Hell yes.I suppose the question is what is he intending to do about it? If he wants to take it to Tribunal then get him to message me, I can assist.
Driver101 said:
Does it make much difference if it is Scotland, or England?
The employment tribunal has accepted his late request, but the company are trying to get it stuck out.
Not much difference, there are some differences in the law but it is mainly the same (though I must caveat that with noting I've only done a couple of Tribunals in Scotland).. The employment tribunal has accepted his late request, but the company are trying to get it stuck out.
Ok I assume they have made a formal application? How late was it? (I've had an 8 month late claim proceed and a 4 day late one dismissed which shows you how unfortunately random this part of the law is, whether it is not reasonably practicable for him to bring his whistleblowing claim earlier, which I assume is the question the Respondent has put forward)
As to the other questions, costs in Tribunal are rare and no, no case is ever 100%. Anyone who says it is will be lying IMHO.............
Jasandjules said:
Not much difference, there are some differences in the law but it is mainly the same (though I must caveat that with noting I've only done a couple of Tribunals in Scotland)..
Ok I assume they have made a formal application? How late was it? (I've had an 8 month late claim proceed and a 4 day late one dismissed which shows you how unfortunately random this part of the law is, whether it is not reasonably practicable for him to bring his whistleblowing claim earlier, which I assume is the question the Respondent has put forward)
As to the other questions, costs in Tribunal are rare and no, no case is ever 100%. Anyone who says it is will be lying IMHO.............
Do whistleblowing cases not normally have extended time periods? Ok I assume they have made a formal application? How late was it? (I've had an 8 month late claim proceed and a 4 day late one dismissed which shows you how unfortunately random this part of the law is, whether it is not reasonably practicable for him to bring his whistleblowing claim earlier, which I assume is the question the Respondent has put forward)
As to the other questions, costs in Tribunal are rare and no, no case is ever 100%. Anyone who says it is will be lying IMHO.............
ACAS granted the certificate in mid August 2024.
The tribunal accepted his case at the beginning June 2025. So 9.5 months after the certificate was issued.
I assume the allowable time to submit the application is deducted from the 9.5 months?
The company had a little over 2 weeks left to make a response.
A date for the preliminary hearing is already set. It's in September.
The person was in no fit state to take the case forward. They probably still aren't. They've recovered from their physical injuries, but they have been struggling badly with their mental health.
They've been to see their Doctor numerous times. They've been prescribed sleeping tablets, antidepressants, and been referred to a psychologist for help. It has had a massive impact on his life. We didn't think he would still be here a few times.
I'd hope that would be reasonable grounds for being so late?
JoshSm said:
So possibly a stupid question, but given there seems to have been at least one serious workplace injury and further allegations of safety issues, what's the involvement of HSE etc to date?
Usually stuff like this has reporting requirements including a process for reporting hazards?
The company unexpectedly and quickly closed down the factory. They are a large company and still have other facilities. Usually stuff like this has reporting requirements including a process for reporting hazards?
HSE say they are too busy to investigate all cases. They can only investigate cases where employees are at immediate risk. As the company was closing the factory they wouldn't investigate.
The accusations made are very serious. Criminal and not just minor health and safety breaches.
Gt6turbo said:
Habe you spoken to a ambulance chasing lawyer about claiming for injuries?
Were they sacked for failing to wear PPE. What PPE was it and how many warnings or what did the company policy say about failing to wear PPE?
There is a claim for injuries ongoing. Were they sacked for failing to wear PPE. What PPE was it and how many warnings or what did the company policy say about failing to wear PPE?
They were dismissed for failing to follow the company's health and safety policy and not accepting blame for the accident. They didn't have safety gloves or a hard hat on at the time of the accident. Although neither were the reason for the fall or the injuries.
The company identified there was a dangerous access issue. They had planned to instal a number of safety measures, but didn't. Other previously installed safety measures were missing.
The person had zero warnings. They were actually very well known for their safety and trying to improve health and safety in the factory.
From recollection awards given to a whistleblower are uncapped (versus a dismissal matter)
Also I suggest checking (everyone) that you have what seems a scam of ‘legal cover’ in the house insurance.
I used this to great effect for legal advice and fees being covered for what was only a £12pa premium.
Also I suggest checking (everyone) that you have what seems a scam of ‘legal cover’ in the house insurance.
I used this to great effect for legal advice and fees being covered for what was only a £12pa premium.
PushedDover said:
From recollection awards given to a whistleblower are uncapped (versus a dismissal matter)
Also I suggest checking (everyone) that you have what seems a scam of legal cover in the house insurance.
I used this to great effect for legal advice and fees being covered for what was only a £12pa premium.
There is often (usually?) a caveat that cover will apply if there is a better than 50% chance of winning the case and recovering, but I'm thinking that threshold's not an issue here.Also I suggest checking (everyone) that you have what seems a scam of legal cover in the house insurance.
I used this to great effect for legal advice and fees being covered for what was only a £12pa premium.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff