Investigation Meeting

[emerald-sailor]

Hi,

I have been asked to attend an investigation meeting by my line manager.

Am I entitled to see the evidence supporting the allegations before the meeting. I feel that my company are on a 'fishing expedition'.

If no evidence is supplied prior to the meeting am I entitled to answer 'no comment' to questions?

Thank you for any assistance.

[leclerc]

Re: Investigation Meeting

Hi,

I have been asked to attend an investigation meeting by my line manager.

Am I entitled to see the evidence supporting the allegations before the meeting. I feel that my company are on a 'fishing expedition'.

If no evidence is supplied prior to the meeting am I entitled to answer 'no comment' to questions?

Thank you for any assistance.

No you are not entitled to see the evidence unless this is a formal meeting. Are you even aware of the allegations?

You are entitled not to make any comment on allegations or to refuse to answer questions, however, if there is nothing to hid then there is no reason not to answer truthfully and honestly.

[emerald-sailor]

Re: Investigation Meeting

Thank you for that.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Investigation Meeting

Hi,

I have been asked to attend an investigation meeting by my line manager.

Am I entitled to see the evidence supporting the allegations before the meeting. I feel that my company are on a 'fishing expedition'.

If no evidence is supplied prior to the meeting am I entitled to answer 'no comment' to questions?

Thank you for any assistance.

The investigation meeting is meant to clarify the situation and ask you questions. Be aware they may try to trip you up with the questions they ask. You may also be presented with 'evidence' at the meeting. I once attended an investigation meeting and was a thoroughly unpleasant experience, as I wasn't prepared for it. An investigation meeting is often part of the process leading to a disciplinary and eventual attempts to dismiss or take action. You are entitled to see the evidence before a disciplinary.

Without knowing any details, it's hard to comment further.

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Investigation Meeting

In most F places investigation meeting is a starting point of getting someone fired on grounds of gross misconduct. It's often just a formality as the outcome has already been decided.

UK corporate culture is a joke. Try doing some things employers do in this country in most other EU countries and they would face criminal investigation!

If you know another language, then go and live elsewhere. That's exactly what I am about to do. Show this pathetic system a middle finger!

[bluebottle]

Re: Investigation Meeting

In most F places investigation meeting is a starting point of getting someone fired on grounds of gross misconduct. It's often just a formality as the outcome has already been decided.

UK corporate culture is a joke. Try doing some things employers do in this country in most other EU countries and they would face criminal investigation!

If you know another language, then go and live elsewhere. That's exactly what I am about to do. Show this pathetic system a middle finger!

And some EU countries are stricter than others. Get caught underpaying your employees in some countries and they really come down on you. Best of luck in your new life, Mr $quandaŁot.

[teaboy2]

Re: Investigation Meeting

In most F places investigation meeting is a starting point of getting someone fired on grounds of gross misconduct. It's often just a formality as the outcome has already been decided.

UK corporate culture is a joke. Try doing some things employers do in this country in most other EU countries and they would face criminal investigation!

If you know another language, then go and live elsewhere. That's exactly what I am about to do. Show this pathetic system a middle finger!

I totally disagree with you. The majority of employers obey the law and are unbiased, by having personnel independent and not involved in the incident investigate allegations or wrong doing. The point of an investigatory meeting is merely to obtain the facts and hear both sides of the story, before deciding whether their was any wrong doing. People can be disciplined not just for gross misconduct as per you are assuming, but also for minor acts of misconduct. In majority of disciplinary cases, the outcomes is a verbal, written or final warning. Even Gross Misconduct can lead to final warning rather than dismissal.

You have clearly had a bad experience in previous employment, yet your using your personal bad experience to paint every employer with the same brush - Your attitude is very similar to that of a person who would be likely to stir up trouble and cause conflict in the workplace, in my opinion. Yes you may have felt hard do by by your experience, but that's life - Get over it and move on like the rest of us have too.

Such posts as yours above are not needed here, as they do nothing to support or help the person asking for advice.

As for employers facing criminal investigations in other EU countries. Don't make me laugh. Their employment laws are base on EU laws/regulations just like ours. You can't charge an employer with a crime for dismissing and employee as all an employer needs is reasonable suspicious, they do not need clear proof like they do in court of law!

[bluebottle]

Re: Investigation Meeting

I totally disagree with you. The majority of employers obey the law and are unbiased, by having personnel independent and not involved in the incident investigate allegations or wrong doing. The point of an investigatory meeting is merely to obtain the facts and hear both sides of the story, before deciding whether their was any wrong doing. People can be disciplined not just for gross misconduct as per you are assuming, but also for minor acts of misconduct. In majority of disciplinary cases, the outcomes is a verbal, written or final warning. Even Gross Misconduct can lead to final warning rather than dismissal.

You have clearly had a bad experience in previous employment, yet your using your personal bad experience to paint every employer with the same brush - Your attitude is very similar to that of a person who would be likely to stir up trouble and cause conflict in the workplace, in my opinion. Yes you may have felt hard do by by your experience, but that's life - Get over it and move on like the rest of us have too.

Such posts as yours above are not needed here, as they do nothing to support or help the person asking for advice.

As for employers facing criminal investigations in other EU countries. Don't make me laugh. Their employment laws are base on EU laws/regulations just like ours. You can't charge an employer with a crime for dismissing and employee as all an employer needs is reasonable suspicious, they do not need clear proof like they do in court of law!

It appears that, like any area of everyday life, TB, it is a small unruly minority that give the law-abiding majority a bad name. In my time, I have worked for some truly excellent employers, but I have also worked for one or two who should have or be subjected to a criminal investigation.

The UK could learn a lot from its European neighbours, rather than try and emulate the situation that exists in the U.S.A., and needs to get a grip on certain organisations and large employers who seem content to cause as much unrest as possible. The Germans have a far better industrial relations record than the UK and German employees feel they are playing their part in the success of the firm for which they work.

[leclerc]

Re: Investigation Meeting

In most F places investigation meeting is a starting point of getting someone fired on grounds of gross misconduct. It's often just a formality as the outcome has already been decided.

UK corporate culture is a joke. Try doing some things employers do in this country in most other EU countries and they would face criminal investigation!

If you know another language, then go and live elsewhere. That's exactly what I am about to do. Show this pathetic system a middle finger!

I went through two investigatory meetings whilst at the bank and one after leaving the bank. One related to me swearing at a bank manager in a team meeting(that was a written warning for 12 months), one was when I legitimately got sacked, and another was for comments made on social networking(no further action was taken).

I would add that investigatory meetings as Teaboy2 has said is to establish the facts to see whether or not disciplinary is required or not. It does not always result in the sack or even further more formal disciplinary action.

Each case is based on the merits of the case....

[wales01man]

Re: Investigation Meeting

Question to those who criticise Employers?

How many people have you employed together with the problems they cause their are as many bad employees as there are bad employers,
Employment laws may not be perfect but the biggest problem as always is the person who is representing the employer and the employee they are the problem in many cases not the Company

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Investigation Meeting

I went through two investigatory meetings whilst at the bank and one after leaving the bank. One related to me swearing at a bank manager in a team meeting(that was a written warning for 12 months), one was when I legitimately got sacked, and another was for comments made on social networking(no further action was taken).

Obviously a much more lenient bank than mine!

I would add that investigatory meetings as Teaboy2 has said is to establish the facts to see whether or not disciplinary is required or not. It does not always result in the sack or even further more formal disciplinary action.

Each case is based on the merits of the case....

In my case, the investigation meeting was a bit of an afterthought. They had already decided to get rid of me. I was dragged into a little room on the premises on a Thursday upon returning from lunch. Was questioned for about an hour, then told to go to the next room where one of the shift managers was assigned to 'babysit' me and ensure I didn't go anywhere near a computer or phone (my mobile had previously been confiscated). 15 or 20 minutes later, I was handed an envelope containing a letter saying I was suspended pending an investigation, and another one 'inviting' me to attend a disciplinary at 1pm the following day.

The same letter stated below that I had the right to at least 24 hours notice before a disciplinary, and the envelope was handed to me at 4 or 5pm, i.e. less than 24 hours before the scheduled time. It was really just a fluke that I decided to open the two envelopes and managed to read the two letters thoroughly whilst waiting for the Big Shot to pick up my handbag and laptop from my desk, before being escorted out by my 'babysitter'. I questioned the timescales and was told "Sorry, wrong letter". A few minutes later, I was handed another letter with a disciplinary scheduled for Monday at the same time.

Over the w/e I happened to get in touch with someone who knew a lot about employment and very kindly drafted a letter for me stating I would not be attending the disciplinary on Monday for a variety of reasons. I'd always thought not attending a disciplinary was the equivalent of not filing a defence, i.e. I'd get "sacked by default". It was not so and I managed to get it postponed for nearly two months [extremely long story worthy of a book by itself].

On the Tuesday after the disciplinary I didn't attend, I got a phone call asking me to attend an investigation meeting, which lasted 3 hours only because I got up and walked out after that time, when they started asking me questions about my emails to a friend of mine who worket at another bank. I then said I couldn't answer such questions without legal advice and left. :bolt:

As can be seen from the sequence of events above, the disciplinary had been scheduled for the day after I was told I was suspended, so the alleged investigation had already taken place and everything else was pretty much academic. I should really do a blog about all this, it happened soooo long ago but still remember it all is if it had been yesterday. For the record, the bank in question wasn't a UK retail bank but a foreign investment bank.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Investigation Meeting

I totally disagree with you. The majority of employers obey the law and are unbiased, by having personnel independent and not involved in the incident investigate allegations or wrong doing. The point of an investigatory meeting is merely to obtain the facts and hear both sides of the story, before deciding whether their was any wrong doing.

In some cases but not in my case, see my post above.

People can be disciplined not just for gross misconduct as per you are assuming, but also for minor acts of misconduct. In majority of disciplinary cases, the outcomes is a verbal, written or final warning. Even Gross Misconduct can lead to final warning rather than dismissal.

I've heard that happens with some employers not much in the financial $ector. My argument all along was that, if what I was doing was wrong, I should have been given a warning rather than just going for dismissal.

You have clearly had a bad experience in previous employment, yet your using your personal bad experience to paint every employer with the same brush - Your attitude is very similar to that of a person who would be likely to stir up trouble and cause conflict in the workplace, in my opinion. Yes you may have felt hard do by by your experience, but that's life - Get over it and move on like the rest of us have too.

Mr $ was around at the time of my employment experience, as posted above, and also here: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...contract/page2

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Investigation Meeting

UK employment laws are not subject to the EU laws by same extent as, say, German or French. There are many 'exceptions and opt outs'.

To clarify, I have never been sacked on a gross misconduct myself but I have seen enough. Yes, I did resign a few years ago following a bullying manager who falsified my sickness record. The case was later settled by ACAS as I was prepared to go to the ET after seeking legal advice. The very same manager later caused problems to a colleague. The company would not do anything about them, in fact managers were quite protected. The firms' fob off letters said something like 'the manager was only following the company policy...'.

I don't think that all sectors are as bad as the F (financial) one. UK employees are among the least protected within the EU. This government has now made it more difficult to go to the Employment Tribunal.

When it comes to 'independent personnel' from my experience HR staff are far from independent. They are there to protect the employer, not employees.

Contractors have it even worse. I have been time and again asked to sign the EEA 2003 opt out. I always refuse and some recruiters don't like it. Why would I sign my rights away? Sorry, but I'm not that stupid. In other EEA countries (EU + Norway and Iceland) there is no such thing as EEA 2003 opt out.

Move on. That's so typical. Should be said 'move on and shut up'. Sorry, but some of us won't!

[bluebottle]

Re: Investigation Meeting

UK employment laws are not subject to the EU laws by same extent as, say, German or French. There are many 'exceptions and opt outs'.

To clarify, I have never been sacked on a gross misconduct myself but I have seen enough....

...Yes, I did resign a few years ago following a bullying manager who falsified my sickness record... Stupid tit! Not only would he have dropped the employer right in it under Data Protection (Failure to Maintain Accurate Records), he would have dropped himself and the employer in it with DWP and HMRC if they had decided to do a spot-check on SSP records.

The case was later settled by ACAS as I was prepared to go to the ET after seeking legal advice. The very same manager later caused problems to a colleague. The company would not do anything about them, in fact managers were quite protected. The firms' fob off letters said something like 'the manager was only following the company policy... Which in layman's terms reads, "Yes, we know he's doing it because we put him up to it and are turning a blind eye to it." The phrase "...only following company policy..." is one of the most foolish things for any company's senior management to say because they are, effectively, admitting to wrongdoing and dodgy practices.

I don't think that all sectors are as bad as the F (financial) one. UK employees are among the least protected within the EU. This government has now made it more difficult to go to the Employment Tribunal.

When it comes to 'independent personnel' from my experience HR staff are far from independent. They are there to protect the employer, not employees. They are a menace to employees and employers alike. One I had dealings with called himself "a consultant in HR and employment law" when all he had was a BA in bugger-all. I don't know why, but my former police training kicked in and I questioned him rather "firmly". He was getting quite upset when I continually pushed him to produce evidence to back up his claims, which never materialised, and quote law he claimed to know, but clearly did not. I am aware that legal professionals are campaigning to have so-called HR consultants brought under strict statutory regulation, which they are not at present.

Contractors have it even worse. I have been time and again asked to sign the EEA 2003 opt out. I always refuse and some recruiters don't like it. Why would I sign my rights away? Sorry, but I'm not that stupid. In other EEA countries (EU + Norway and Iceland) there is no such thing as EEA 2003 opt out.

Move on. That's so typical. Should be said 'move on and shut up'. Sorry, but some of us won't!

@@@@

[teaboy2]

Re: Investigation Meeting

UK employment laws are not subject to the EU laws by same extent as, say, German or French. There are many 'exceptions and opt outs'. I think you will find all our employment laws and regulations are based mainly on EU law, though other nations do not have the Opt Outs that we have a right too, such as the right to opt out of working the maximum 48 hours week, therefore enabling us to earn more overtime if we choose too then our counter parts in the other EU nations. Opt Outs have there benefits and give UK workers freedom of choice. Yes they are certain exceptions, but then there is certain exceptions to other EU countries employment laws too.

To clarify, I have never been sacked on a gross misconduct myself but I have seen enough. Yes, I did resign a few years ago following a bullying manager who falsified my sickness record. The case was later settled by ACAS as I was prepared to go to the ET after seeking legal advice. The very same manager later caused problems to a colleague. The company would not do anything about them, in fact managers were quite protected. The firms' fob off letters said something like 'the manager was only following the company policy...'.

I don't think that all sectors are as bad as the F (financial) one. UK employees are among the least protected within the EU. This government has now made it more difficult to go to the Employment Tribunal.

When it comes to 'independent personnel' from my experience HR staff are far from independent. They are there to protect the employer, not employees.

Contractors have it even worse. I have been time and again asked to sign the EEA 2003 opt out. I always refuse and some recruiters don't like it. Why would I sign my rights away? Sorry, but I'm not that stupid. In other EEA countries (EU + Norway and Iceland) there is no such thing as EEA 2003 opt out. Said opt out under EEA 2003 is for limited company contractors only, if opted out of then, you are considered self employed, meaning you will not have to worry so much about IR35 but will not get the same protections as you would on PAYEE

Move on. That's so typical. Should be said 'move on and shut up'. Sorry, but some of us won't! Sorry but is this your thread? No its not! If you have a problem with UK employers and employment laws, then why don't you start your own thread where you can express your opinion and complaints about UK employers and Uk employment law and comparisons with other EU nations, so it cvan be discussed, without derailing this thread where your issues with UK employer and employment law have no relevance and are of no help the the OP of this thread.

In your earlier post you were criticizing employers, implying some should face criminal charges - Yet above your saying employment laws in other EU nations are more favorable, when really their not. So what you want UK employers to do, break UK employment laws to satisfy your desire for UK employers to be more like German or French Employers?