Gross Misconduct

[alham]

Re: Gross Misconduct

The reason why I asked was that senior partners from A would have known your wife's prior works ethics, so approaching some of them for "good character reference" might have been on the cards, but also this is important as, if only the B partners are involved in harassment of your wife, that may give you extra ammunition in any future complaint (obviously you have to be prepared to counterclaim of bad workmanship, etc...) ALso, make sure that she copies ALL the emails and paperwork that she can supporting her case and demonstrating unreasonableness of the claim( careful that this doesn't breach any confidentiality conditions of her contract, don't give them extra ammunition).

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

A couple of procedural questions:

Firstly, we still don't know what the original allegation against my wife was that distinguishes her as being responsible rather than the other two accounts assistants or her boss who has managerial responsibility for the billing. The invitation to the disciplinary appears to extrapolate a reason from the outcome of the investigation. Is my wife entitled to know the specifics of the allegation against her?

Secondly, we have asked for copies of the minutes of the meetings that the investigator held with other staff members. We've been told that, because the interview notes haven't been approved by the interviewees we cannot yet have them but they will be provided when the interviewees have agreed their content. (What happens if any of the interviewees refuse to give their approval has not been made clear). This doesn't seem right to me as it a) allows the evidence upon which the conclusions were drawn to be amended before we get to see it and b) the decision has been made based on the notes as they currently stand. Could this denying us sight of the notes prior to them being amended and or approved constitute procedural unfairness?

[alham]

Re: Gross Misconduct

There is a name for this that involves antipodean marsupial...Oh yes, a kangaroo court. Have you taken a legal advice? CAB may be able to help. It smells awfully bad. I think this area is miliitant's specialty.

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

We have taken legal advice and that has been to gather as much evidence as possible and return prior to the disciplinary itself. The solicitor is just under Ł200 per hour so I'm trying to balance getting adequate advice with trying not to go bankrupt :-) The procedural issues I've raised above have only recently come to light when my wife received the invite to the disciplinary and have not been discussed with the solicitor yet but they will be. I'm thinking more about the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal at the moment - I don't think we can avoid the inevitable outcome of the internal process, which I believe has been determined already.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Gross Misconduct

BUMPED for militants attention.

[seduraed]

Re: Gross Misconduct

Check your houe insurance legal cover frthis sort ofthing is often bundled in with contents insurance.

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

I've checked and you are right - we do have legal cover. I've asked them to send a copy of the policy and I'll talk to the legal people tomorrow.

I now have another question in addition to the two procedural queries at post 17 above. Of the few documents that we have received from the panel one is a copy of the letter that the investigator sent to my wife prior to the investigation. Except that it isn't a copy. Its similar but the "copy" she received today is dated two days earlier than the one she actually received and the wording in the "copy" is slightly different. Where the original says things like "I believe that you are responsible" the copy is much less equivocal; "you are responsible" (my emphasis).

The investigator has been invited to the disciplinary to present his report and my wife will be allowed to question him. The question is; should we highlight the discrepancies to the panel now (and hopefully put doubt into the panel's mind's about the investigator's credibility) or wait until the hearing and question the investigator about them then?

[alham]

Re: Gross Misconduct

Again, you must keep copies of both documents!!! My personal opinion is that panel has already reached its decision and discrepancies in copies have more relevance in the tribunal not in front of the panel. You need to prepare your coherent arguments for the panel, all the other bits are procedural maters and will be just a distraction. You need to concentrate their mind on ACTUAL facts, especially as they are accountants and as such everything else but facts and figures normally way beyond them (I have some accountant friends!).

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

We now have notes (see post 17 above) from three of the four meetings that the investigator had with other staff members and they have been amended by all three of the interviewees. I don't think the amendments add or detract from either side of the argument and they do genuinely appear to be clarifications (although obviously I'm not happy about this being allowed to happen). Of greater concern is that two of them have been redacted. In one (the first interview) a whole sentence has been redacted, in another approximately 23 - 25 characters have been redacted in the middle of a sentence. Does anyone have any views on this?

Secondly, it is obvious from the notes that the investigator interviewed the first person then essentially asked the remaining interviewees to confirm the account of the first person. To me this seems that the investigator is seeking to prove the account of the first interviewee rather than establish facts. I think this demonstrates predetermination but am sufficiently self aware to realise that I'm not exactly unbiased myself, so I'd appreciate the views of independent people. Does this demonstrate predetermination?

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

The farce continues. The disciplinary was yesterday and the first thing that was supposed to happen was the investigator talking through his report to the panel. This was something that we were well prepared for and felt confident that we could destroy his credibility when asking questions. Unfortunately, it didn't happen because he didn't turn up and, when he was contacted, he refused to turn up to defend his report at any time. The meeting was adjourned while the panel decided what to do. The decision was to dismiss the investigators report and tell my wife that she would not be losing her job. The hearing continued because the panel were concerned that the original problem - some of the invoices going out of time - still existed so something was clearly going on and they spent an hour or so discussing things with my wife. After that they interviewed my wife's boss and someone from the secretarial department. After much discussion they recalled my wife and told her that she was to be given a written warning. She was given no opportunity to interview any of the other witnesses that she asked to be called (and which the panel had previously indicated would be called). It isn't clear if they have upheld the allegations, which only appear in the investigator's report that they said they were ignoring, or whether they've invented new charges. We await the written decision.

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

We now have the written decision and the panel decided that "so far as the actual charges as set out in the letter of [date of the invite to the disciplinary hearing] are concerned the panel found that those were not proved and that you were not guilty of gross misconduct." It then goes on to say that, however, my wife's performance was not what was expected of her and, because some invoices that date back to 2010 (!) will not be paid, that a written warning was an appropriate sanction. Can they lawfully do this; find the allegations re conduct not proven and clear my wife then substitute an entirely different charge re performance and find her guilty? A lot of people spent a lot of time providing evidence and statements to help defend a gross misconduct charge and it doesn't seem particularly fair that the panel can effectively say "You're right, you're conduct is fine so instead we will sanction you on your performance, which hitherto no-one has mentioned as being a problem"

[enquirer]

Re: Gross Misconduct

We now have notes (see post 17 above) from three of the four meetings that the investigator had with other staff members and they have been amended by all three of the interviewees. I don't think the amendments add or detract from either side of the argument and they do genuinely appear to be clarifications ...

They should have been separate statements, not amendments to the original. Looking at the statements, is there evidence of collusion?

Does this demonstrate predetermination?

Yes, but more importantly, it demonstrates poor investigative techniques.

[enquirer]

Re: Gross Misconduct

We now have the written decision and the panel decided that "so far as the actual charges as set out in the letter of [date of the invite to the disciplinary hearing] are concerned the panel found that those were not proved and that you were not guilty of gross misconduct."

So, Not Guilty.

Can they lawfully do this; find the allegations re conduct not proven and clear my wife then substitute an entirely different charge re performance and find her guilty?

I would refuse to accept the written warning and then see what they do. Will they risk this mess going to law?

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

They should have been separate statements, not amendments to the original. Looking at the statements, is there evidence of collusion?

They're vague on facts and detail but I think so. There's the first interview, then the two that follow both start with "agreed first interviewee's account"

Yes, but more importantly, it demonstrates poor investigative techniques.

Lol

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

So, Not Guilty.


I would refuse to accept the written warning and then see what they do. Will they risk this mess going to law?

Not quite "not guilty". Its "not guilty of the charges that you were asked to answer but guilty of something different". My initial reaction was to suggest that she appeal it but when I calmed down it occurred to me that the panel's decision could be considered reasonable by an employment tribunal.