retaliation via disciplinary & suspension after grievance/whistleblowing (autistic)

[ULA]

In terms of the process it is as I said previously an unusually long time for which you have been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation even given that they had to deal with the grievance that you raised.

In terms of just going over your preparation for the hearing tomorrow (which I presume was delayed from the original date of 20 April) you need to ensure that you have prepared a response to all the points that they have raised in the letter detailing the allegations. Being thorough and doing the job that you are given to do in a competent manner is not something of itself that should be subject to a disciplinary. However what you will need to be able to defend is the lateness issue which seemed to have started this process. Recording conversation without the knowledge of the parties involved although, yes it is often seen as distasteful, however it is what you then do with that recording where the problems may occur for example providing it to a third party without the participants knowledge. So you need to ensure that on that issue you have covered this area of concern and any others that have been raised in the letter to you. The behaviour issues will also need to be addressed by you.

I would suggest you push the point about the referral to Occupational Health (OH) particularly after you were formally diagnosed, in order that if necessary they could advise on whether provision should be made for any reasonable adjustments, that OH felt would be necessary to support you in your job. The other thing as well in the amount of time that you have been on paid suspension - the company has taken far to long to progress and deal with both the grievance and the disciplinary.

Hope that helps.

[BoxOfRocks]

Hello again, thanks for the responses. I had gone through everything with a fine tooth comb, and as far as i'm concerned, countered every allegation with a combination of disparity/inconsistency beween everyone's accounts of the events, lack of evidence, and such. I hammered home the fact that my employer had previously conceeded that the OHU referral should have been made sooner, and will resolve to do so sooner for others. I hammered home the fact that this whole process including the grievance and suspension has been unreasonably long, and is by no means fair and neutral. The counter case I put forward was fairly watertight, i felt.

All troughout they typically spent their time passing off, and ducking & diving points more than the england football team, particularly when i was making comparators to things that could be remotely connected to the grievance, as opposed to actually considering what I had to say.

The distinct impression I got when I was there, was that the outcome was already predetermined, and my rep actually turned to me whilst we were taking a 5 minute break, and voiced the same concern. They were simply not interested in looking through the bundle as I was presenting my side of it, and directing them to specific sections, particularly not with the same level of.... enthusiuasm? as they had done whilst the 'opposition' were presenting theirs. As expected, the find serious misconduct with 4/5 allegations bneing upheld (one of the 2 s36 recording allegations not upheld), all of which on flimsy evidence at best. Their decision i believe is almost on the level of Wednesbury Unreasonableness (though that's only really applicable to court process, right?) Interestingly they found serious misconduct, which warranted dismissal with a month's notice... I was half expecting a SOSR type dismissal.

I have 10 calender days from the date of the finding (3/5/18), to lodge an appeal, and i'm hurriedly transcribing what I have, to put forward as evidence, to prove the total lack of impartiality and what not in their investigations. I will provide more details in a day or so, I need to finish the transcripts first.

[ULA]

It sounds like you did a comprehensive job at the hearing.

Thank you for the update. Will look out for anything else you post over the coming days.

[BoxOfRocks]

Hello again, sorry for the delay, it has been difficult to maintain focus & slog through countless bits of paper. Okay, so I have continued to transcribe stuff, which has also served as a bit of a refresher, and i've submitted an appeal request, stating grounds, and demanded a full rehearing largely due to discrimination and lack of impartiality. Additionally I have indicated that the conclusion & sanction is unreasonable, given the facts and inconsistencies presented. I have also indicated that they have breached theior contractual policy on a great number of occasions, and have pointed out that similarly worded parts of their grievance policy, (I.e the release of documents ahead of the hearing) and yet we have completely different outcomes, to the extent that I waas simply given a complete bundle on 1 occasion, and forced to make a SAR on the other. The quasi suspension breaches policy in that it was too long, and the investigation process should only last a maximum of 20 or so days, unless a longer timescale was agreed between myself and them...I was not approached, let alone agreed to anything. I shall be PMing a timeline to ULA, in order to make things clearer.

As for the hearing itself, the respondant witness (my line manager) contradicted himself on a multitude of occasions, and indeed lied & made comments contrary to those contained within the investigation report. It became clear in cross examination (due to overlaps in events/cause and effect) that he, my line manager, investigated one of formal grievances (allegedly under the instruction of the person appointed to handle the grievance, whom in turn enacted the suspension), to which he and 2 others were the accused, The witness then 'learned' of the damage to the workshop van throuighout the course of the investigation, entered my locked toolbox without my permission whilst I was suspended, and "matched" it up to the indentation in the floor of the van, and that this was the only set of tools that he checked against. The one claiming to be the witness of said impact, was one of the other 2 accused, whom I had already had an argument with prior to suspension, and had already blown the whistle about R.E attempted fuel theft. - The panel sitll found disfavourably in regards to this allegation.

The 'impartial' HR advisor to the panel was constantly jumping down my throat and interjecting whenever I asked a leading question of the clearly hostile respondant witness, or whether the line of enquiry I was going down wasn't immediately obvious. Additionally jumped down my throat when I had asked a similar question to what had already been asked, and yeilded a contradictory answer. Further to that, in the later end hearing, they proceeded to interrogate me regarding S36 of the data protection act, spew factually incorrect information, and implying that I was in fact a data controller as per the legislation, despite me stating that it was in fact an exemption.

The manager chairing the meeting had already decided the outcome, and that was clear in his demeanour. ASD sufferers do struggle in this area sometimes, but at other times it is so unmistakable. my rep however observed and commented the same, so that provides me with more assurance of my own asessment. He had esssentially deferred to my rep after acknowleging that he had a greater understanding of ASD, and yet proceeded to object on the basis of something poorly understood, from a rough and ready guide to the condition. Some of his comments regarding his perception of the traits were actually quite insulting, and no real consideration was made in regards to the disability.

The other manager on the panel is essentially the MD, and has explicit knowlege of the contents of the grievance, and some of the whistleblowing concerns, as the document was initially addressed to him and his subordinate, as his subordinate waas on hioliday at the time. At the time of original submission, he stated he had no familiarity with the issues that I raised, and was therefore leaving it to his subordinate. My question is that given my assertion that the issues across both processes are closely linked, and the grievance casts the company in a negative light, would that not somehow be prejudicing the panel, or otherwise bring legitimate impartiality concerns? I mean, I know what is really going on, I just mean from the aspect of proving it.

The investigator had now assumed the role of the management represenataive, or prosecutor, if you will. I included some mitigating comments (R.E culpability) that he himself had made during the course of the earlier investigation interviews with me, as part of my presentation. I turned and directed to him whilst i quoted what he had previously said during the hearings, to which he elected to remain silent and not confirm that said comments were made. So much for impartiality of the investigator. Further, the report is written in such a way that it ignores almost all the mitigating elements indicated in the evidence, save for an occasional honourable mention of ASD purely for the purposes of formality.

Again, I appreciate that this is yet another long read, and thank you all for your time in supporting me.

[ULA]

Thanks for your post and the timeline. Have you now lodged the appeal detailed at post #17?

[BoxOfRocks]

I have lodged the appeal as per post #19 and demanded a full hearing, citing, among oither things, the circumsances outlined in that post. i am completely sick of their procedural gamesmanship.

[ULA]

Well done on lodging the appeal. Their procedural delays, as proven by your timeline document,

have had no reasonable explanation as far as I can see.

[BoxOfRocks]

Yeah, their reason for the delay was essentially that everybody's annual leave had lined up consecutively, including that of the investigating officer. Though that wouldn't then explain the unreasonable delay in investigaating the disciplinary investigation therafter, as both investigations took place within the same leave year, literally end to end.

[ULA]

A clash of annual leave does not, in my view, adequately explain why you have been on suspension since 3 April 2017 whilst they carry out an investigation, then handle your grievance and then continue with the disciplinary hearing following the conclusion of their investigation.

[BoxOfRocks]

Indeed. I was 'rocking the boat' before they instigated an investigation into lateness, despite explicitly beiung informed of a disability, regardle4ss of formal diagnosis. I in fact have evidence, where they in actual fact admitted that I had said I was sucidal in december 2016, long before any investigation of any kind took place. Since it was workplace issues bringing me down, and I was voicing them, they retalliated. in the investigatory meeting that I recorded, I restated some of the issues, including whistleblowing issues. a few days later the manager gave me an informal note, indicating that I had stated the isses were outside of work. Some weeks later, the day before my breakdown, this is where I overheard them discussing the meeting through the wall, and essentially stating my concerns don't really ammount to anything, as acording to HR.

It was clear at that point that a coverup/supression was going on, and following my breakdown, I put together the formal grievance, and transcribed and submitted my version of the meeting, which essentially forced their hand. This is when they retaliated and removed me from the standby/overtime rota, and once I had defeated that, they then suspended me. It was essentially a death knell, and they've have left it so long because they quite simply did not know what to do in order to make the problem go away, and hoped I would leave of my own accord. That backfired, so then it was a last minuite scramble to get rid of me before I reach the 2 years service milestone, This is why both investigations & hearings were manifestly biased. The fact my EDT is within 20 or so days of that milestone, after having been suspended for well over year, reinforces my assertion. It's retalliation plain and simple, just that they will try and blur the lines so that it does not appear so outwardly obvious.

[BoxOfRocks]

Ok i'm back. i'll give an update later today as to what has been going on once I have calmed down