Internal investigation

[o0hex0o]

This is part of a longer post I will publish over the next few days, focusing on constructive dismissal and the upcoming ET.

As part of my job, I review quarantined emails, look for email misuse, breaches, etc This sometimes requires the mails to be read.

Over the last 4 years, this has been normal practice, and I have in the past found emails containing confidential information or internal documents being sent out to personal email addresses, typically when people leave the business. On several occasions this has been brought to the attention of the DPO who then involves the head of legal, and I have been involved with calls with the offender and the head of legal to guarantee that the emails have been fully deleted, this is then followed up with a letter from the head of legal.

After I was constructively dismissed ( more of this in another thread), a claim was made that I inappropriately accessed emails and read the content and that an internal investigation would take place. I was asked to join an investigation call to answer some questions. This was after my last day of employment, and I agreed to join the call with the HR representative and the head of legal, who conducted the meeting. Several questions were asked during the call, and answers give. it was also agreed that I would be sent a copy of the notes for review.

Long story short they never sent me a copy of the notes. I resorted to a DSAR, which they refused to release the notes as it was still an active investigation, and they would be sent to me with the outcome of the investigation.

Six months on, and the grounds of resistance have been sent to the ET. Within this, there is a claim that an investigation was completed and I was found to have accessed emails inappropriately. With this info I have gone back via another DSAR and eventually got the documents, as part of the DSAR they also released emails showing that the notes were ready the day after the meeting and were sent to the head of legal to approve the release.


When reviewing the investigation notes, the transcribed sections are mostly accurate, often word-for-word.
However, several key points were omitted, including:
• Confirmation that I had not accessed the meeting invite that triggered the investigation, as stated by the HR representative.
• head of legals acknowledgment that he had been involved in several prior incidents where general searches flagged potential data issues — and that such events were considered normal operational occurrences.
• My disclosure that I had alerted CTO and other board members about their identities being impersonated via email.
• That communications were sent internally to raise awareness of email spoofing highlighting there was potential for phishing and ransomware attacks , which led to CTO requesting all outbound communications be reviewed by the comms team — a point now cited in the Grounds of Resistance as one of justification for dismissal.
• Discussions around emails from both the former CEO and CFO commending me for investigating suspicious emails they had received\sent, explicitly stating, "keep up the good work" — which can be retrieved from internal records.
• My concerns that personal emails had been accessed by the CTO after i had left

These and other omissions materially affected the context and integrity of the investigation outcome, and as I said on the call, they were only using the information that fits their narrative.

I did respond to the head of legal as follows
"I understand that you reviewed the investigation meeting notes. However, it appears that several key points were selectively omitted from the official transcript, despite being referenced in your final investigation report and other documents I am on possession of. This presents a narrative that lacks critical context and fails to acknowledge the operational justifications that were raised at the time.
In your capacity, whether legal or quasi-legal, you appeared to use your professional status to lend undue weight and authority to the investigation process. By approving or producing a transcript that was both incomplete and misleading, you effectively excluded relevant evidence and withheld material facts, thereby shaping an outcome that does not reflect the full picture.
Also, I was not given an opportunity to view the other evidence you relied upon or respond to it, two examples I have addressed below, but there are many more, raising serious concerns about fairness and procedural transparency."

They are using this in the grounds of resistance to say that if the ET finds against them, then I would have been dismissed anyway because of the investigation.

Is there anything I can do about this? Should I report this to the SRA?

[ULA]

o0hex0o please do not post on another thread. Those of us advising need all the information on the same issue in the same place. It makes providing advice much easier than us hopping between threads.

[ULA]

An ex-employee can report the Head of Legal for their ex-employer to the SRA (assuming they are a solicitor and regulated by the SRA) if they believe there has been a serious breach of the SRA’s rules or professional standards. However I am not sure the SRA will investigate whilst there is an ongoing dispute with the employer of the individual who is bound to be involved in the case.

You may also want to consider this course of action at this stage of your ET proceedings, as the Respondent may use this to try to infer you are a vexatious claimant

[o0hex0o]

I was part of a senior leadership team (SLT) of six in the IT department of a healthcare company for about four years, also serving on the business SLT. There have never been any HR complaints or issues against me, and successfully achieved accreditations like ISO27001 and Cyber Essentials.
In November 2024, during a personal review, I informed the CEO I planned to retire in about 18 months, offering to help recruit and hand over during my last 6 months—looking back, I regret mentioning it.
The IT team mainly worked remotely, using email and Teams. Around that time, I began noticing some unusual patterns, particularly the CTO (newly appointed in April 2024) sending late-night messages, with quick replies from team members. Speaking with the team, they felt pressured to respond immediately. I also noticed other worrying behaviours from the CTO, like regularly being late and disengaged during 121meetings, almost seeming annoyed to have to be doing the 121s. I mentioned these concerns to HR, and changes were made, but the changes were only temporary.

A few weeks later, during a critical call, the head of operations—who had previously been interim CTO—appeared on camera. I hadn’t seen him for a long time, and he visibly looked very ill, having lost significant weight. He was unusually withdrawn, indecisive, and passive during the call, which was out of character. Others in the SLT confirmed noticing his gradual decline after I pointed it out to them. When I spoke to him privately, he broke down, saying he felt immense pressure from the CTO, describing episodes of being physically sick, extreme anxiety, and constant second-guessing of his decisions.
I raised my concerns formally to HR, especially as other SLT members worried he was suicidal, noting similarities to previous cases of suicide within the company. However, HR took no substantial action. The head of operations felt trapped, unable to formally complain due to fear of repercussions.

Things escalated, and the CTO increasingly isolated SLT members, including myself, excluding us from important meetings and decisions within our roles. I discovered I was removed from the business SLT without notification and left out of critical project planning, budget, and security decisions. Even decisions like uninstalling essential security software were made without my involvement. A flagship course that all of the business SLT we put on I was excluded from. There are further examples of being excluded, information being withheld, and not being included in decision making for my area of responsibility, eg uninstalling security software from devices.
Key decisions were also challenged, such as urgent security actions, disabling accounts, use of unauthorised software by individuals, governance documents and their relevance.


The CTO also started openly challenging my decisions, such as urgent security responses and the use of governance documents. We were instructed not to discuss IT problems outside the department, worsening the isolation.
The bullying and gaslighting resumed, notably towards the head of operations and the head of architecture. My attempts to support them revealed they felt suicidal. Eventually, under escalating pressure, I felt forced to resign during a heated HR meeting, sending my resignation via email.

After resigning, the company asked me to stay for 6-9 months to help with an audit, promising a retention letter outlining objectives and ending the bullying. Although initially agreeing, the bullying continued, and I openly highlighted the toxic environment during a team meeting with HR.

After these things did improve and at the next HR meeting to discuss my retention I was asked to withdraw my resignation, at this point I stated I would wait for the letter before withdrawing my resignation and talked about potential finishing dates. I was told that the letter would be ready by the end of the week , this was the week before Christmas 2024. On the Friday the CTO tried to contact me and we eventually spoke late Friday as he was away over Christmas , he said he thought he would have something to tell me but the letter was not ready but he had also negotiated a retention bonus .
Over the Christmas period I decided that as we had discussed the retention letter, the bulling of my colleagues had reduced and the offer of a bonus that I would withdraw my resignation, which I did. I exchanged a number of messages with the CTO around security issues and phishing emails etc over the Christmas period and asked if my retraction had been accepted he was very guarded in his response saying we would discuss it on his return.

However, upon return in January 2025, I was abruptly told my resignation withdrawal wasn't accepted due to a vague statement of "breakdown in relationship" and was immediately put on garden leave. From DSAR (Data Subject Access Requests) information, I later discovered the company had already planned this rejection and deliberately delayed informing me.
Two weeks into garden leave, the company accused me of improperly accessing the CTO's emails, despite later stating in writing I had not. They subsequently reversed their position, claiming I did access emails inappropriately.

Other information :

Both the head of ops and the head of architecture contacted me and said things were getting worse for them. I encourage them to formally raise this with HR and both drafted emails but were to scared of the consequences of sending them I spoke to them daily over the next few weeks, giving as much support as I could.
The head of architecture called me saying she had been called in to a meeting and told that she was being made redundant and was in a bad state of mind, I told her to get a DSAR in as she felt this had been planed for a long time and the bulling \toxic behavior she was experience hadn’t “done the job” so redundance was the next option for them, I also told here to finish the draft complaint and get it in ASAP. The head of architecture got both the DSAR and the complaint in within a day of being told of the redundancy. This resulted in a settlement agreement of around 6x the redundancy but came with restrictions around what could be said or actions that could be taken, which included taking part in any legal proceedings.

The head of opps also had a sense that they were going to do the same to him but would not send the complaint in, he was having his end of year review as part of this the CTO has to complete a performance review prior to the meeting, this is then sent to the head of opps so he can respond in the review. The CTO had stated that the head of ops performance was unacceptable, etc in the performance review document; this was not accurate by the way. The head of ops called me and in a very bad place mentally, as he believed they were going to manage him out of the business. Short version is he sent in his complaint detailing all the issues and got a settlement agreement that was equivalent to a year's pay, again this came with restrictions around what could be said or actions that could be taken, this included taking part in any legal proceedings.

As part of my submissions to the ET I have requested that witness orders for the the head of opps and the head of architecture be issued and both are happy to do this even attending the hearing as they want to expose what went on, in the grounds of resistance document they have submitted a significant proportion is taken up objecting to the witness orders.
Just to add, out of a team of 6 heads of I was part of, 5 “left the business” in less than 9 months, 3 were given settlement agreements, 1 we think was given a settlement agreement but is not talking to anyone.
I’ve requested witness orders for them in my employment tribunal (ET) case, but the company is strongly objecting. In just nine months, five of six senior leaders—including myself—left, three with confirmed settlements and one suspected.

[o0hex0o]

i am having issues posting the rest of the issue is there a limit on text length ?

[ULA]

Your post just needed approving which I have done and also deleted the multiple posts so there is just the one.

[ULA]

Thank you for all the background detail of your ET claim which is I am correct from your first post is constructive unfair dismissal.
What questions do you have from your post #4 that you would like us to assist you with?

[o0hex0o]

What they are maintaining is that I did not withdraw my resignation, I have documents via the DSAR showing I did, and even if I did, they don't have to accept the withdrawal; therefore, it was not constructive dismissal. Is this correct?
I also believe that what I did by bringing this up with HR was whistleblowing, and highlighting that HR did not take any real action to address this and this is the real reason for not accepting the withdrawal.
The investigation into inappropriate access was initiated a week after I was put on garden leave. They have also stated that I did not access the CTO emails, but found 3 emails out of 100's that I accessed as part of the daily tasks from other users that they have made fit the allegation of inappropriate access. They state in the GOR that even if the ET finds I had been constructively dismissed, I would have been dismissed because of the investigation findings. I feel like they have made the facts fit their narrative to cover themselves, and it is a vexatious perusal.

Do I have an actual case ? i am concerned as they have sent a letter stating that if I lose, they will claim the cost of 20K-30K

[ULA]

Sorry some further questions from me:

1. How did you withdraw your resignation, was this in a form of written communication and on what date?
2. On what date did you return after Christmas and was it on that day they said they would not accept the withdrawal of your resignation ?
3. If not how long after?
4. How was this communicated to you?
5. What was your contractual notice period? I ask this in respect of their request, on your initial resignation, to ask you to work a further 6-9 months.
6. Is your claim just for constructive unfair dismissal or are there further claims?

In answer to your questions:

1. A company is not legally obligated to accept a withdrawal of a resignation. If there is proof that your withdrawal was not accepted, then potentially you have no claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
2. You mention whistleblowing ,was this in relation to your comment that "Although initially agreeing, the bullying continued, and I openly highlighted the toxic environment during a team meeting with HR."
For you to make a whistleblowing claim, that you suffered detriment due to the disclosure, it must be in the public interest and be one of the following:
a) a criminal offences (e.g. fraud)
b) a health and safety risk
c) an environmental damage
d) a miscarriages of justice
e) a breach of legal obligations
f) covering up any of the above
3. There is nothing you can do to change what the respondent has presented in their ET3 & GoR, what you need to do is concentrate on presenting your claim and rebutting their defence.
4. Respondents, particularly if they have legal, representation do threaten what is known as a costs award against a claimant. The norm for ET claims is that each party pays for their own legal costs, however there are instances when a costs award has been made against one of the parties. It is fair to say costs awards remain relatively rare, but recent data shows a minimal increase in frequency, particularly in favour of respondents i.e. 2022/2023 - 150 in favour of respondents and then the following year 153. However you need to compare this with the number of claims filed in each of those years 85,352 and 97,000 respectively.

[o0hex0o]

No need to be sorry, you're helping me, and I am grateful for that, and your answers have put my mind at ease on the cost.

I withdrew my resignation via email on 27th December 2024. I specifically stated in my email to the CTO and the HR business partner that after reconsidering your decision over several days, I wished to withdraw my resignation, stating that my resignation had been a reaction to a meeting which I described as "heat of the moment.

I had worked over the Christmas period providing cover for the other SLT members while they were off, during this time I was in contact via teams with the CTO for several general issues nearly every day over the Christmas period, had asked the CTO several times if he had accepted my withdrawal and he deflected the question, his stock answer was we would discuss it on the week of the 6^th Jan 2025. I did say that that was unacceptable, and he should be able to give me an answer; eventually, I escalated to the HR director.
From the DSAR, I have the team's messages between the CTO and the HR business partner. The CTO messaged the HRBP about my retraction, and she responded on 2/01/2025, “ I guess he knows the hesitation to confirm means we are considering not accepting”

Technically, it was 2 days after returning, but I had asked the CTO several times over the previous week.

As I had escalated the HR director, a call was set up for 3/01/2025 between me and the CTO 1 minute before the meeting, the CTO told me the HRBP would also be attending. There was a very short discussion about why I was withdrawing my resignation, and I was told that he could not give an answer there and then, the call then finished. I was asked to rejoin the call 15 mins later and was told that they were not accepting the withdrawal and that I would be on garden leave with immediate effect.
Again, from the DSAR, I have teams messages between the CTO and the HR business partner The decision had been made, as on the 2/01/2025 the CTO asked how quickly can we have the paperwork ready, and suspending my accounts, they also had a script prepared for the call ( I have a copy of this)

My contractual notice period was 3 months.

My claim is for constructive dismissal because of whistleblowing, i.e. calling out the bullying and toxic behaviour against 2 of my colleagues, which impacted their mental health to the extent that they both were suicidal( they are both happy to give a statement to this effect)

I believe that employers have a legal duty to protect employees from work-related risks to their mental health under the Health and Safety Act, and this is why I included whistleblowing.

[ULA]

Thank you for the further answers which are most helpful.

My observations in respect of your claim is that :

1. You are trying to run with a constructive unfair dismissal claim with a whistleblowing element based on you having no option but to resign. "I felt forced to resign during a heated HR meeting, sending my resignation via email". For this to succeed you will need to prove that your employer fundamentally breached your employment contract, either an explicit term or an implied terms such as "mutual trust and confidence", forcing you to resign. For the whistleblowing element this will need to be around the health and safety of your fellow workers who were being put at severe risk in respect of their mental health due to the working environment and that by you raising this with HR you then suffered detrimental treatment. This alongside a fundamental breach in your contract and the heated meeting (the last straw) left you no alternative but to resign.

2. However the issue for you is going to be that you then rescinded your resignation, albeit this was eventually not accepted. If the situation was so bad that you resigned and are now claiming it was constructive unfair dismissal why did you rescind this? This you will need to defend, probably as part of the

3. Of course the company will try to object to the witness orders, particularly if individuals have now left the company under a settlement agreement. However under Rule 34 of the
The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 "The Tribunal may order any person in Great Britain to attend a hearing to give evidence, produce documents, or provide information." I would suggest that any of the witnesses who have signed a settlement agreement take their own independent advice on this.

4. If their GoR also asserts that you would have been dismissed due to the results of the investigation then this is something you would have to defend

[o0hex0o]

The mutual trust had been destroyed when I spoke to my colleague, and he broke down in tears and told me how he was being treated and what he was going through mentally each day. Confidence was lost when it was reported to the HR director, and all they did was ask my colleague if he was ok. This was further compounded when the same behaviour was directed at another colleague, both stated that there was no point in going to HR as they won't do anything, and it will only make things worse for them.

Following my resignation, there were signs of improvement, and discussions began about an exit plan lasting 6-9 months. They also asked me several times to withdraw it. I viewed this as a good option for myself and to be able to support my colleagues for an extended period of time as I still had concerns that they were suicidal and small things could push them, over the edge.
I think I am ok with defending results of the investigation, I have documents from the DSARS and a letter from their solicitors stating that I did not access the CTO email. They have also missed key facts from the meeting minutes and their interview with their expert; he could only answer 3 questions out of 7, the other 4 he stated he would have to check. I also have not been formally informed of the outcome, had a chance to respond to the answers their expert gave, as again, key facts are missing, and I have not had the right of appeal.
On the settlement agreement, does this change anything?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93kwgzz88qo

[ULA]

I appreciate that there were signs of improvements and that you wanted to support your colleagues which led you to the decision to rescind your resignation. However you are making a claim, from what I can tell, for constructive unfair dismissal at the point you first resigned. At any hearing the burden of proof for this type of claim will be on you to prove that an express or implied term of your employment contract was broken and that you had no alternative but to resign. Your actions following, this in rescinding your resignation, will potentially come into question and I am advising that you need to prepare for this.

The article you linked to is in reference to Non Disclosure Agreements related to sexual misconduct or discrimination. It is currently an amendment to the bill and has not been passed into legislation.