Worried/Confused - Partner suspended from work

[Starkiller]

Hi

I am hoping to get som e advice, please bare with me though as I am totally new to all this.

 

My partner has been suspended from work following a preliminary investigation,

 

the investigation began on August 21st when an anonymous letter was received by his Area Manager

claiming he had been for want of a better word skiving work and coming into work with a hangover.

 

His area manager immediately accused him of lying, prior to any investigation and removing him from incentive (bonus)

in effect punishing him without giving him any opportunity to defend what he was being accused of.

 

He was questioned at length regarding his whereabouts over 1 1/2 days in July,

specifically 4 hours one afternoon, and 2 hours when he came home due to a Migraine.

 

He can account for his wherabouts for the 4 hours on the afternoon,

despite the maliciousness of the letter accusing him of being elsewhere,

the evidence they have produced in a screen shot of my partners Facebook page!!.

 

Being accused of a hangover was actually a Migraine,

and the only thing he did wrong regarding that was that he didnt follow procedure by letting area manager know,

but he did let his colleagues know.

 

Roll on lasr week when

 

he was again called in for a second meeting, beleieving that as he had accounted for his whereabouts

that the investigation would be finalised and there would be no case to answer.

 

The second meeting was drawn to a conclusion by the investigating officer,

who then adjourned the meeting and told my partner that he had to consult HR as he was thinking of suspending him.

 

My partner was shocked and upset, he has worked for the company for 5 years, is in a senior management role and has an exemplary record.

 

He was suspended at the reconvening of the meeting,

he was so upset as he has done nothing wrong apart from the minor indescretion of not informing his manager that he was going home ill.

 

Today a full 6 days after suspension he has received his letter advising that he is suspended for "unauthorised absence,

intimidation of staff and breach of trust", apart from having to wait 6 days, none of these were mentioned verbally by the investigator,

he merely said he was suspending him "to protect the business"

 

I am stunned to be honest that they have invetsigated on the basis of an anonymous letter and a Facebook page print off!

 

For his part he hasn't been sat around doing nothing, eventhough we weren't sure of the content of the suspension letter until today,

 

he has been collecting specific policies, and has been putting together a statement and his own evidence that challenges every aspect of what was in the investigation notes

, the only bit he can't skirt around is that he SHOULD have contacted his Manager when he went home ill.

 

I don't really know what I can do or say to advise him

[Emmzzi]

I'm sorry this is happening.

 

Is there medical evidence to support migraines ie he has been properly diagnosed?

 

What was he doing on facebook at work, and does the company have a social media or use of IT policy? If so it needs checking.

 

Not following absence procedures is not minor; I would want to know if someone was going home with a migraine, they might not be fit to drive for one thing, and I have a duty of care! His peers do not, so telling them is not enough.

 

Does he ever go in hungover, does he have a drink problem?

 

I would advise him to talk to his union.

 

Where do you think the intimidation thing has come from?

[Starkiller]

Sorry for the confusion

he wasn't on Facebook at work,

they used the Facebook screenshots to try to say he was in other places other than where he said he was when he should have been at work.

 

Primarily this is my fault as I have had the 6 weeks off work over the summer and when I have been places I have tagged him in my statuses to "rub it in"

I suppose that I was doing things that were enjoyable and he was at work.

 

He can catergorically prove where he was on the occasion they have specifically targeted as he was in a meeting,

he has a letter which thanked him for attending and if needs be the organisation he was visiting can prove he was there as he signed in and out.

 

At the time he went home with the migraine he was under a lot of stress at work which is well documented as he was dealing with a HR issue within his team,

which I told him he should have passed on at this point, but he insisted that due to his level of responsibility

there was a specific level of expectation as to what he should/shouldnt deal with.

 

However, as a manager of people myself I would not have felt comfortable or confident to have dealt with this issue myself, but he is not me.

 

He has migraines yes, and he is also diagnosed with SAD which has flared up this summer due to the poor weather we have had.

He hasn't got a drink problem at all, far from it, I have never seen him hungover in the whole time we have been together.

 

Intimidation - no idea, I can only assume that they imagine he would talk to people who had been interviewed.

 

I feel so bad for my part in all of this as in the FB tagging, I seriously need to grow up

[Emmzzi]

Well that sounds like it can mainly be explained. I never friend anyone from work on FB, might be an ide for partner to do the same - linked in for business acquaintances, FB for personal and get those privacy settings changed!

 

So next question - why would his manager react out of proportion to this? And what has he done that someone is sticking the knife in behind his back?

[Starkiller]

The only thing he can think of is he moved a collegue who was under performing to another branch for a short period of time, it was discussed with his Area Manager, but said colleague was very upset as she felt she was being singled out etc.

 

As for over reaction, im not sure. She has rung him today and has given him some reassurances which I cant really understand how she can as she has no involvment with Disciplinary etc. Union are aware, but the union rep isnt available until Oct 18th to attend a meeting.

 

He has deleted anyone work related from FB, I have talked to him about online reputation which is what I teach my kids at work :-/

 

Thanks for the replies, I just needed to offload I think as I was going insane!!!

[Emmzzi]

sounds like he is doing all the right things. try and help him keep calm!

[Starkiller]

The irony is he is at the football tonight and he has had a call from the companies recruitment section about a new job he applied for in the same company 4-5 weeks ago. Dream job, not ideal being under investigation & facing disciplinary proceedings

[altobelli]

Hi Starkiller, don't blame yourself, you haven't done anything wrong.

 

It sounds like the investigation has been completely botched.

 

They have taken the accusations and assumed he is guilty rather than allow him to disprove the allegations.

 

Someone is wanting it to be seen to be shown that they are investigating a complaint seriously,

but are going about it a ham-fisted way without any thoughts as to your husband's reputation or to a fair procedure.

 

If he can prove where he was, there really isn't a case to answer, and suspension is not appropriate in the situation as you describe it.

 

If he's told another member of staff he's leaving with a migraine, they can let HR or his manager know if that is company policy.

 

Even if he didn't tell anyone, the common sense thing to do would be to send round an email detailing procedure for when staff have to leave the office due to illness.

 

What are the specific accusations regarding 'intimidation of staff' and 'breach of trust'.

 

These are just soundbites without further information and they need to provide full details of exactly what he is being accused of to allow him to defend himself.

 

Who was the investigating officer - was it the Area Manager?

 

Was he involved in some way in helping to resolve a conflict within his team - could one of his staff be behind these accusations?

[altobelli]

Sorry, some posts crossed over.

 

Sounds like inexperienced investigating officer/HR not realising the folly of taking allegations at face value and failing to make your partner aware of the allegations and conduct a proper investigation before taking further action.

 

Re. Facebook, no harm in having friends from work listed, but just remember its in the publis domain and adjust privacy settings accordingly.

[Starkiller]

Hi Altobelli

Nothing specific has been mentioned about intimidation of staff,

the only thing that was brought up in the investigation was one of his assistamt managers,

but nothing that would be constude as intimidation.

 

Breach of Trust - absolutely no idea, I can only imagine that this was him not following the sickness/absence policy.

 

Breach of Trust can be far reaching I guess, he was told by the investigator "Don't worry we don't think you have been nicking money from the Bank"

 

The investigating officer was another Manager from the district who is the same management band as my partner,

and has a real "Alpha Male" complex as he tries to perceive himself as top dog so to speak.

 

 

 

I am sure things are going to be ok, but in the meantime he is off work still ,and emotionally is up and down like a yo-yo.

 

I guess we have to sit tight and wait for the disciplinary pack to arrive with all the info in it, and take it from there.

[Starkiller]

I thought I had started a thread on here earlier in the year regarding my partner's problems at work, but I can't seem to find it. (ETA - just found them)

 

Anyway, my partner made a claim against his employer (large bank) in the tribunal for unfair dismissal submitting his claim before the tribunal system changed. He called the tribunal office last week as he hadn't heard anything from his former employer or from ACAS; the Tribunal office said that there had been no response from his former employer and it had been "passed upstairs for a decision to be made regarding a default judgement". We were stunned at the lack of response, and have been talking about it over the weekend.

 

Does anyone have any knowledge as to what the process is here on in? Is his claim subject to the old rules as it was submitted before the changes? Does his former employer get a second bite of the cherry so to speak in order to make a response?

 

Doing this all ourselves, no solicitors etc so any knowledge gratefully received

 

starkiller

Edited September 8, 2013 by Starkiller

[Sidewinder]

The Judge will need a damn good reason to allow them extra time to defend. They will almost certainly claim that the claim was not served - are you sure that it was sent to the correct address? I know that in the bank charges days that was always a popular excuse - bailiffs even turned up to remove goods on occasion but the argument that they didn't receive the papers seemed to allow them the necessary grounds to get the claim reopened.

 

As far as I am aware the claim is still live until determined by the Judge and even in the event that the clock is reset to allow them time to respond this will still be under the old rules.

[AndyOrch]

Threads merged for history.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[becky2585]

The Judge will need a damn good reason to allow them extra time to defend. They will almost certainly claim that the claim was not served - are you sure that it was sent to the correct address? I know that in the bank charges days that was always a popular excuse - bailiffs even turned up to remove goods on occasion but the argument that they didn't receive the papers seemed to allow them the necessary grounds to get the claim reopened.

 

As far as I am aware the claim is still live until determined by the Judge and even in the event that the clock is reset to allow them time to respond this will still be under the old rules.

 

There's a nasty sting in the tail under the new ET Rules (from 29 July) for employees now, though. A Respondent can now apply for extension after the deadline expires for filing its ET3, which can be granted retrospectively. It seems a very lenient new rule IMO as Claimants wouldn't have the same right to file late!

 

I suspect they may just have not received the claim - it would be strange for a large company not to respond. They may well appeal any default judgment (or ask for a review) so sit tight and don't destroy any paperwork.

[Starkiller]

There's a nasty sting in the tail under the new ET Rules (from 29 July) for employees now, though. A Respondent can now apply for extension after the deadline expires for filing its ET3, which can be granted retrospectively. It seems a very lenient new rule IMO as Claimants wouldn't have the same right to file late!

 

I suspect they may just have not received the claim - it would be strange for a large company not to respond. They may well appeal any default judgment (or ask for a review) so sit tight and don't destroy any paperwork.

 

HIThanks for the reply. This is what I am confused about as the claim was submitted before the date of the change, so wouldn't the ET work under the 2004 rules not the 2013??The paperwork listed 3 repondants all at the same address, I think a coporation - large or not, would bb hard pressed to say all 3 sets of paperwork didnt arrive?ThanksStarkiller

[Starkiller]

The Judge will need a damn good reason to allow them extra time to defend. They will almost certainly claim that the claim was not served - are you sure that it was sent to the correct address? I know that in the bank charges days that was always a popular excuse - bailiffs even turned up to remove goods on occasion but the argument that they didn't receive the papers seemed to allow them the necessary grounds to get the claim reopened.

 

As far as I am aware the claim is still live until determined by the Judge and even in the event that the clock is reset to allow them time to respond this will still be under the old rules.

 

Hi The paperwork was sent to the Regional Office of the emplyer, the one which my partner was attached. As stated in my last reply, three repondants were listed all at the same address, so I would imagine that it would be going some for Royal Mail to not deliver three sets of documents.ThanksStarkiller

[becky2585]

Confusingly, you can use a new ET3 form to file a response on a pre-29 July claim. And the current 2013 rules apply even to claims issued prior to 29 July 2013. So for procedure, the 2013 rules apply - I believe the only exception is for fees, which don't apply.

[smokejumper]

I don't suffer from migraine , but I would imagine when you get one, you are in intense pain and just want to go home to a darkened room, you probably don't have the strength to go chasing after an area manager and do the next best thing and inform a responsible person that is in your office.

 

Just another case of the "offence" looking a hundred times worse when on paper, I miss the days of common sense, when issues were dealt with and nipped in the bud, too many slopping shoulders now.

[Grotesque]

Hi The paperwork was sent to the Regional Office of the emplyer, the one which my partner was attached. As stated in my last reply, three repondants were listed all at the same address, so I would imagine that it would be going some for Royal Mail to not deliver three sets of documents.ThanksStarkiller

 

Seriously, that's what registered post is for! Too late now though. As long as you haven't lost any of the evidence etc...?