Investigation? Suspension?

[Star_light]

I am new here and found you all following a search. I would like to please ask for comments and or advice regarding a complex and distressing situation at work, and apologise in advance for being vague and the length but after a browse of the forum it seems you give good support and advice .

 

(I have over two years employment).

 

Last year new manager appointed, obviously did not like me but well in with big boss. I previously got on well with big boss prior to new manager starting.

 

Out of the blue, Big boss suspends me pending investigation, moved to different area and outcome eventually no formal action, return to substantive post, mediation to smooth process.

 

Attended mediation, new manager and me plus two mediators. New manager did not really engage and brought new issues but tentative agreement reached so I awaited date for return.

 

Big boss then comes to me and takes me into the office, mediation has failed, therefore you are refused return to your post, it will be advertised asap but you are still suspended.

 

Hands me letter stating I have agreed to above and to meet to agree where I will be placed long term asap. I email disputing letter, copy hr and harassment continues with email from big boss stating I know current duties not a post so unsustainable going forward.

 

During above events I approached lead mediator to find out whats going on, who turns out to be new senior hr person for our section (!!!) who now suggests three way facilitated meeting to resolve outstanding issues and also tells me union rep not previously involved has approached hr following mediation stating other party approached them and is now saying I am intimidating them and feels unable to attend further meeting at the moment. Turns out both mediators hr managers, however representation not allowed during mediation and it is supposed to be confidential and without prejudice. Facilitated meeting above would be with representation, but needs agreement.

 

HR then replied to my email disputing letter, and that Big Boss saying new Manager refusing further meetings at the moment, HR now saying no further one to one between me and big boss, suggested options are meeting with big boss, hr mediator person, me and union rep (different one who is leading my case but is good mates with above union rep) to discuss letter or submit grievance for further investigation, they are awaiting response from me.

 

I have said I will respond to above. But am working with the above union rep who intervened following mediation as part of my alternative duties (which I have continued with as no other option at present) and this person has now told me they are line managing me "whilst this is all sorted out" no other explanation of how this came about or any written information given. I asked if representing other person but states only giving advice to both of us. Divided loyalties all over the place it seems.

 

It is all a big mess I know, I have some ideas but appreciate any comments or advice on pro active next steps so I don't end up without a job please? I need to respond to HR asap.

[altobelli]

On the mediations, it is absolutely crucial to the mediation process that both parties attend. I think your manager has fabricated this accusation of 'intimidation' in order to try and gain some advantage in the mediation process - he probably knows he is in the wrong and would come out badly in a mediation so has accused you of intimidation in order to gain some leverage and make him look like the wronged party, so that you are put on the defensive in the mediation. Its all about him trying to get control of the process, and you musn't let him do that. He really should be ashamed of himself as a grown adult saying he is too intimidated to attend a mediation session just because you are there - this is supposed to be a manager and a leader! The mediators should recognise the benefits of both parties being present at the mediation, and need to use all of their influence to ensure that the manager attends. If I were you, I would refuse to proceed with the mediation unless all parties are present. You should stress that you are committed to a mediated solution, but the mediation needs to take place in the standard fashion, otherwise it will not be constructive.

 

I do think mediation is the best way to resolve this though, its better than going down the formal route (although you might need to consider a formal grievance if your manager is 'too intimidated' to show up to the meeting). Also, the independence of the mediators is paramount and even though these mediators are from HR they need to be absolutely neutral and not just take the manager's side because he is the manager. If it becomes apparent during the mediation, and hopefully it won't, that the mediators are not impartial, you need to raise this as and when it occurs, requesting a change of mediator in extreme circumstances.

[Star_light]

altobelli, thank you for your reply and I too believe you are right about the tactics being used.

 

We have already had a mediation and the accusations of intimidation came soon after although I only know about them as I approached the senior hr mediator person who suggested a three way facilitated meeting to resolve any outstanding issues, however in response big boss is apparently saying new manager feels unable to attend at the moment and in the meantime is keeping me suspended and steaming ahead with advertising my job!!

 

Mediation would be the best way forward however needs agreement which is not forthcoming and they are saying a decision therefore needs to be made, and has been, but they are getting ahead of themselves - I think the decision was made before the investigation so why would they want to change it now?

 

In raising a grievance I would again be accused of being aggressive towards new manager, (and feel I am being set up as such), but as you also say I do need to defend myself here, so if you have any further ideas about how to approach this I would be very grateful.

[Emmzzi]

Originally suspended pending an investigation for what, and has that allegation been withdrawn?

[Star_light]

Originally suspended pending an investigation for what, and has that allegation been withdrawn?

 

Hi Emmzzi, in answer to your question: allegations that were made by new manager specifically against me, which if true would have been very serious and not previously raised as an issue with me, relating to events that had happened over a month before.

 

Outcome of investigation is no formal action, no outstanding issues and recommend mediation between myself and new manger, and return to my post.

[Emmzzi]

Odd. I could understand these actions if there were an accusation of eg bullying or racism. None?

[Star_light]

Odd. I could understand these actions if there were an accusation of eg bullying or racism. None?

 

Thanks Emmzzi, I know what you mean, odd certainly sums it up, all I can think of is as altobelli says the further spurious claims of "feeling intimidated" are to derail the mediation and therefore my return to post, however these have been made again behind my back and so are being used against me with no right of reply.

 

Do you have any advice on how I could approach this from here?

[Emmzzi]

1.ask why mediation failed

2. Offer to take anger management course if its a claim of intimidating behaviour

3. Remind boss in not found cases its traditional to move both parties so as not to play favourites

4. Ask union for next level of rep up.

 

You may not agree with 2. I'd go for "I don't think I am scary but if it'd reassure x then I'll go and do it because that is the kind of reasonable cooperative person I am"

[Emmzzi]

PS no formal action - was any informal action suggested?

[Star_light]

Thanks for suggestions Emmzzi, to answer where I am up to with those -

 

Mediation feedback to Manager only states if worked or not, no detail given as "confidential".

 

I felt new manager did not stick to ground rules of honesty during mediation and said this at the time, session was not stopped, we were not told on the day it had been unsuccessful. HR person is now saying this could be cleared up by three way meeting but that is being refused.

 

I can tell they have all discussed it behind my back going on comments made since, but they can deny this, obviously.

 

Mediation is the recommendation plus refresher training for all on communication and documentation - all fairly standard stuff.

 

I am not supposed to know about the allegations of intimidating behaviour, been told verbally by hr person and new manager's union rep that is now line managing me that new manager is refusing further meetings and is entitled to do so.

 

Have mentioned number 3. but have been told verbally by big boss I have to move, end of.

 

My union rep is already regional office rep.

[Star_light]

Just to clarify - hr suggested three way facilitated meeting would be me, new manager and big boss plus hr and union rep.

[Emmzzi]

Best sit tight and lodge as grievance if and when actually moved then. Remember and document your willingness to cooperate in mediation.

[Star_light]

Best sit tight and lodge as grievance if and when actually moved then. Remember and document your willingness to cooperate in mediation.

 

I am suspended at the moment so not moved but not not moved if you see what I mean?

 

HR are awaiting my response so I need to get back to them - it looks like the mediation is one of the main issues.

 

Any other suggestions?

 

Thanks again for good advice so far!

[Emmzzi]

ah. then I'dgo to the meeting.

[Star_light]

ah. then I'dgo to the meeting.

 

Which meeting?

 

I am requesting the meeting but others are refusing?

Edited March 31, 2013 by Star_light
additional info

[Emmzzi]

HR then replied to my email disputing letter, and that Big Boss saying new Manager refusing further meetings at the moment, HR now saying no further one to one between me and big boss, suggested options are meeting with big boss, hr mediator person, me and union rep (different one who is leading my case but is good mates with above union rep) to discuss letter or submit grievance for further investigation, they are awaiting response from me.

 

This meeting? With big boss, HR, rep to discuss letter. Why would you not go?

[Star_light]

This meeting? With big boss, HR, rep to discuss letter. Why would you not go?

 

Don't want to go into too much detail, but that would only be to rubber stamp their unreasonable decisions and therefore not in my interests.

[Emmzzi]

It's still what I would do, as a chance to state my case face to face. Then if no progress, a grievance.

 

An ET will ask, "dd you give the employer a chance to put it right." right here, you are refusing to do that.

[Star_light]

It's still what I would do, as a chance to state my case face to face. Then if no progress, a grievance.

 

An ET will ask, "dd you give the employer a chance to put it right." right here, you are refusing to do that.

 

I see what you are saying of course, although I am not refusing simply offering a three way meeting to resolve the actual issues, not those created to deflect attention away from that, which key people are refusing to attend. What is the point of a meeting without those there who can resolve the matter, unless of course they are refusing which is of course the point being denied by them?

Edited March 31, 2013 by Star_light
additional info

[Emmzzi]

To satisfy an ET. That is the point.

 

Given you do not hav the power to force someone to meet with you, what is your better suggestion then?

[Star_light]

To satisfy an ET. That is the point.

 

So are you saying that an offer to resolve via a meeting which would actually resolve would not do that?

[Emmzzi]

So are you saying that an offer to resolve via a meeting which would actually resolve would not do that?

 

So the only meeting you will go to is a meeting with someone who is intimidated by you, where you can see the whites of their eyes? That could be seen as bullying and intimidation. What other suggestions do you have, if you are refusing? (Which I would class as "refusing a reasonable instruction" by the way.... so misconduct.)

 

You have very little power here, you need to be careful!

[Star_light]

So the only meeting you will go to is a meeting with someone who is intimidated by you, where you can see the whites of their eyes? That could be seen as bullying and intimidation. What other suggestions do you have, if you are refusing? (Which I would class as "refusing a reasonable instruction" by the way.... so misconduct.)

 

You have very little power here, you need to be careful!

 

I do see what you are saying and really appreciate your advice, remember I have not been officially made aware that they claim to "feel intimidated" by me and it is in fact being used as a tactic to avoid further meetings. I am taking advice of the senior hr person who was in fact present at the mediation so it can't have been that bad and actually it wasn't. Big boss is refusing to have that three way meeting in an attempt to cover up her part in the shenanigans which have gone on and would come out if the three of us were in the same room at the same time. So it is in the interests of both new manager and big boss to refuse a three way meeting.

 

I am fairly sure HR person is pulling their hair out over this as am I !!

[Emmzzi]

Machiavelli's got nothing on you...

 

ok, I have no other ideas. I default to simple, and straightforward. And I'd discipline you for refusing the request because it's fannying about.

 

Good luck, let us know how you get on.

[Star_light]

I don't see it as refusing to meet, just asking them to resolve the actual issues?

 

They need to be careful too, you know!