Can anyone advise me on the following dismissal?
Whilst on a final warning, I was suspended for Gross misconduct for theft. Even though I immediately proved no theft had taken place, I was still suspended and the accusation was later revised to removal of property without permission. However, as I was already on a final warning, I was dismissed at the end of the process for an ‘act of misconduct’.
While I fought the original case that placed a final warning on my record, I thought it would be far less stressful to get through a year for it to pass, than go back through a process that almost caused me to have a nervous breakdown.
I completely refuted the allegation of theft and the later revised allegation of removal of property without permission as permission was provided. I maintained that I was satisfied in my own mind that I was acting appropriately and legitimately having gained permission from an appropriate and responsible member of staff, a security guard. I was also granted access to a secure area in the full knowledge of the high security status in the area and that I was being observed on CCTV. I was granted access to an area that is out-of-bounds to all staff and was allowed to continue with the arranged collection on the day.
The investigation is littered with breaches of the ACAS and the company’s own guidelines. However, I feel as I am defending myself, I will lose to the company’s tough legal team lead by a barrister. The case is booked for a hearing at the beginning of June.
Below are the highlights of the issues:
The investigating officer, the hearing manager and the appeal manager all chose not to speak to security
The Hearing Manager states that because of a live warning at the time of the incident, he had “no alternative but to dismiss”. I believe he had numerous other options available, but chose not to consider any or they would have been in his report.
There is a lot more detail to this case, but I can respond to any questions if further information is required.
Thanks in advance.
Whilst on a final warning, I was suspended for Gross misconduct for theft. Even though I immediately proved no theft had taken place, I was still suspended and the accusation was later revised to removal of property without permission. However, as I was already on a final warning, I was dismissed at the end of the process for an ‘act of misconduct’.
While I fought the original case that placed a final warning on my record, I thought it would be far less stressful to get through a year for it to pass, than go back through a process that almost caused me to have a nervous breakdown.
I completely refuted the allegation of theft and the later revised allegation of removal of property without permission as permission was provided. I maintained that I was satisfied in my own mind that I was acting appropriately and legitimately having gained permission from an appropriate and responsible member of staff, a security guard. I was also granted access to a secure area in the full knowledge of the high security status in the area and that I was being observed on CCTV. I was granted access to an area that is out-of-bounds to all staff and was allowed to continue with the arranged collection on the day.
The investigation is littered with breaches of the ACAS and the company’s own guidelines. However, I feel as I am defending myself, I will lose to the company’s tough legal team lead by a barrister. The case is booked for a hearing at the beginning of June.
Below are the highlights of the issues:
- The suspension meeting was conducted by my line manager. This is against the company’s own stated policy
- The company did not seek any information from security after I advised I was given permission by security
- CCTV footgae includes:
- my conversation with security at the barrier (no audio)
- security granting me access to the area
- security walking passed in the CCTV footage
- security granting me permission to leave unchallenged
- The suspension meeting minutes show the meeting was not just a suspension meeting, but also an investigation meeting
- The notes of the suspension meeting were considerably different from the notes I observed during the meeting and could not have been written at the time of the meeting
- I received a copy of handwritten notes by post 35 days after they were allegedly written and long after I had made numerous requests to HR for copies that were completely ignored. They were not dated. They do not set out the nature of the allegation or the potential consequences. They do not include who was present and were not written up into formal minutes
- The suspension letter was received about 30 days after the suspension meeting
- No evidence exists to show that permission to suspend (which is required) was actually granted
The investigating officer, the hearing manager and the appeal manager all chose not to speak to security
The Hearing Manager states that because of a live warning at the time of the incident, he had “no alternative but to dismiss”. I believe he had numerous other options available, but chose not to consider any or they would have been in his report.
There is a lot more detail to this case, but I can respond to any questions if further information is required.
Thanks in advance.
Comment