Tweet
Hi All,
i am sorry for this extremely lengthy report, but I feel that I have to share with you my case and that of my wife with between us 77 years as civil servants who have never been disciplined before, conducted ourselves fairly and in accordance with the code of conduct honesty, integrity, impartiality and fairness. We have always gone above and beyond workin out of hours in a challenging environment and never receiving any complaints from the public about my treatment of them. we have both been lucky in our health in that I have suffered no sickness absences, and my wife very few days absence in her 39 years
i came to this site back in October 2014, following my dismissal from work after 38 loyal service. I have been to an ET and have lost the case. I am detailing below what I went through and the lies and inconsistencies that came out at the tribunal. It all boils down to the Judge on the day/ days.
There are minor inconsistencies in the Judges Report of which I believe significantly impact the decision however I do not have the energy or mental health to continue with this matter on a legal basis.
I was employed as a civil servant. In December 2013 I had been informed that I was to be moved to a site across the other side of town without any consultation. I discussed with my line manger the correct processes for the move and also with his line manger and in view of the fact that I was going on annual leave, i was advised that if I didn't like it I should put in a formal grievance which I did.
On 06/01/14 my line manager put in an allegation to internal investigations that He had overheard me talking to a colleague saying that I had paid for my holiday from my expenses and that he had checked my recent work and found lots of paperwork missing. He was telephoned by Iv on 08/01 and asked to whom I was talking, he said that he didn't know as he was not the person who overheard me. In his witness statement he said that he had heard me in early January 2014. ( Early January 2014 I was not in the office I was still in America) I did not returnuntil 13/01 . Totally inconsistent
The internal investigations Department did an investigation by getting my expenses applications. they never looked at what visits I was alleged to have not completed. The Iv established that I was claiming for excess travel and not inputting a home to office deduction. They also alleged that I had inflated my mileage claims and not suspended customers benefit immediately in accordance with the current current guidance( the guidance at the time of the visits was properly adhered too. The long and short of it was that my line manager was asked to ask me to provide various documents in relation to the expenses of which I was claiming which I duly did ( I was not aware that I was under investigation) he was interviewed and said at the interview that he was aware of our claiming of the expenses and that we ( myself and a colleague) were not inputting the home to office deduction but he thought that it was because of a local agreement made with our previous manager. He had been job shadowing her for a period of 12 months and once he was no longer shadowing her was sat in the same office on the same floor.
The Iv made an appointment for me to be interviewed regarding expenses irregularities, as I was aware of the local agreement I was not unduly fazed by this I simply thought that I would have explain about the agreement that my previous manager had organised by way of a business plan I had a copy of an email that referred to the business plan I also asked for my colleague to accompany me as a witness. I was denied this I found out later that he also was under suspicion for claiming irregularly as well. I was interviewed about expenses why I was claiming for the move to an alternate place of work and why did I not suspend people's benefit immediately. There was two and a half pages of a 70 + page transcript in relation to home to office deduction and a failure by the IV to take any evidence from me. He did not ask me about fabricated visits which arose at the Disciplinary Meeting. He was dismissive of my answers and cut me short and at the end told me who the Disciplinary Manager was going to be,
I told in my interview letter and was reminded that I was unable to talk to anyone within the Department about the matter. ( this included my wife as she worked in the same department and for the same team of managers) I waited for 6 months to receive an invitation to the Disciplinary Meeting and during this time was unable to discuss this matter with my wife, she was coming home from work crying as she had started to be bullied by her line manager (following) 39 years service of never having been bullied before. Coincidence or what.?
when I was informed of the Disciplinary meeting I was hit wth Disciplinary for inflated mileage, not taking the home to office deduction not suspending people's benefit and fabricated visits, the last supported by a document containing 300 redacted names addresses and NI numbers. All that was provided was a date and wether they had been able to locate the paperwork or not. They had failed to look on the Departmental Systems to establish who held the paperwork and where it was likely to be. Fortunately I have OCD and retained my own additional records from which I spent a week tracing all of the paperwork my colleague was unable to do that to support himself as he relied on the Departmental systems. At the interview the DM discussed why I was claiming expenses which muddied the waters somewhat between the expenses and the home to office deduction, although they were linked I have since established from the Field Work Record that by this time they were satisfied that I was entitled to expenses. I provided evidence by way of emails that confirmed that there was a business case I told her that I clarified with the line manager the effect of it and that she instructed me to claim my expenses by way of Actual Mileage with no home to office deduction as it had been agreed at a local agreement. Following which she authorised and approved the same each week when I applied for my expenses. I was aware that I was not following guidance, but following instruction.
A week later I found that my colleague had been dismissed on the day that I had been interviewed for the same reason. During work at that time I was suicidal my head was mush and I was still unable to tell my wife and my TU rep was on holiday. When I eventually was handed the letter by my line manager who made the false allegation in the first place I left the office and took myself off to commit suicide. Whilst at the spot I came to my senses and realised that I had not done anything wrong. I told my wife about my dismissal following which she understood why she was being bullied. She had thought that we were going through marital problems and then most recently that I was seriously ill.
During the ET hearing I was asked by the Respondents Barrister to look at the report and to confirm it was the report, which I did I was asked if it included my mentioning of the local agreement I replied that the report did not but I had mentioned it. I was asked if I had signed the report as true, I replied that I had not, when questioned further about this I by the respondent I went on to explain that the minutes had been given to me following dismissal, that I had been suicidal and I had not looked at them. I had only looked at them when preparing my appeal at which time it was beyond the 10 days given to amend the report.
The judge recorded that I had signed the record of the meeting and that I had agreed that the local agreement was not mentioned in the meeting .
i had in fact said that I had not signed the minutes and that The local agreement had not been mentioned in the minutes for the Disciplinary Meeting)
When I read them In detail realised that it was not a true reflection of the meeting, so my preparation for the Appeal was so much more detailed I wrote everything down As I was determined that it should be recorded and handed a copy to the Appeal Manager. My Union rep dealt with the matter of Bias.
the Appeal manager upheld my appeal on three counts but found that I had failed to input the H2O deduction and so it was a fair dismissal. He accepted an email from my previous line manager that said that she could not remember discussing anything with me but if she had have done it She would not have told me to disregard the guidance.
At this point I made contact with my colleague who had also been dismissed. He had been told in his report that he was investigated because of my insistence, invariably he had not wanted to make contact with me. It transpires that the manager had already told the investigator prior to my interview that My colleague was claiming his expenses in the same way and incidentally there may have been others. No others were ever looked at.
i was denied any evidence that supported my case. Through a SARs request . I obtained the Field Work Record which is a system record that is dated and timed of contemporaneous notes of the investigation which should be factual, non opinionated and record all aspects of the investigation, relating to Findings witnesses etc. throughout the record the investigator makes derogatory comments about me records discussions with the Decision Maker one in which she describes me as manipulative and persuasive and can see how managers can be bullied by him. The IV stated at the ET that they were just his notes, he had initially decided that the case was for a prosecution and that I was not entitled to any expenses in which case those notes would have been for disclosure. My training is that all notes should be factual not opinionated She stated that I was definitely not on Detached Duty, ( it was actually accepted in the report that I was on Detached Duty ) although I was not as I was not officially on Detached duty on the departmental site I was actually told that I was placed at my alternate office following the business case. My official base remained at my previous site. When it came to the tribunal the Iv included in his statement some 18 months after the conversation that he had made a mistake over the recording of that information and said that after a conversation with the DM the DM had told him that it was the line manager had told her that I was manipulative and bullying ( in total contradiction to the second interview with my line manager in which I was described as completely professional, my line manager we found out at the Tribunal had himself been disciplined ( final written warning although it was given to him verbally over the phone and he only ever saw the letter when it was added as an exhibit at my ET hearing) for his involvement and by the time he made his witness statement he described me as being manipulative.) certainly not consistent with his interview.
Their was a record of a telephone call with my previous line manager which completely contradicts her email she stated that I was already on detached duty prior to her arrival and in any case a copy of the business case should be held on my personnel file if there was one. ( there was clearly a business case as it was detailed in an email from her which I provided) they have never been able to provide the business case although the Departmental guidance on retention policy covers that this should have been retained.) It came out at the ET that although I had been requesting a copy of her interview and had been advised that she had never been interviewed, she had in fact been interviewed and the copy of that taped interview had been destroyed prior to the ET hearing with simply a record of the email response recorded in a report in which it had been determined that she would not be disciplined over the matter.
i received a copy of an interview with the line manager who was authorising my expenses immediately prior to my dismissal the Iv spent a considerable time in asking leading questions to get my line manager to say that I was a bully, but my line manager said that I had acted in a totally professional way. The line manager said that he held his hands up as he had authorised the expenses and he was aware that there was no home to office deduction.
From the SAR's request I also received an email in which my line manager was asking for advice from HR in whether to suspend me in which it refers to my having been interviewed and being guilty of two counts of gross misconduct. He copied in the Iv and the DM, the IV told him to withdraw him email immediately as it seriously compromises the investigation. At the ET The Iv said that he had not told my line manager of the result of the interview, my line manager said that he had heard the information from his line manager ( The DM) and the DM said that she had not told the line manager. Someone somewhere is lying the Judge found that the DM was more believable ( what did the line manager have to gain or lose by telling truth nothing, what did the DM have to lose by being involved prior to her making the decision to Dismiss possibly the case)
The DM in her witness statement said that I had masked my expenses claims, however having already seen the Iv having to withdraw that statement whilst under oath she made changes to her statement when she took the oath saying that she had realised that the mileage was not masked in September last year, she clearly put it into her statement that I had masked them. She got the IV to make a statement 18 months after the event to the effect that his contemporaneous notes of the conversation were incorrectly recorded at the time. She told the Tribunal that she had not had any involvement with investigation prior to being the DM, She stated that she had not told my line manager about the interview whereas the line manager said that she had. She said that she had never seen the first interview with my line manager or his second interview with the line manager or the interview with the original line manager. The Field work record ( contemporaneous notes ) shows that the IV records that she was holding onto all the files including my colleague who was also dismissed as they were all linked before she could make a decision. It was also confirmed at the ET when a copy of my line managers Disciplinary Records were provided for the second days hearing that the DM had in fact sent an email to her ( SEO) Manager saying that she had checked for the typing errors returned it to the IV for amendments and it was now for her to consider disciplinary action. she stated that she had not looked at the report ( how she can check the typing errors without reading it is beyond me)
She further stated at the ET that the record of the discussion with HR was not fully documented, as she says that she she told them that I said that I was instructed by my line manager and that other officers may have been involved. The report says that I felt that I was able to do it as my line manager authorised the claims. The advise came back that gross misconduct would normally result in Instant dismissal however she had to satisfy herself that there was not a culture. The DM said at the ET that if a member of staff did something that was against any guidance ( the department has hundreds of thousands of pages on the intranet) it was the line managers responsibility to refer the matter to internal investigations, not to point it out. If they missed the incorrect guidance being followed they were all up for disciplinary as well as the member of staff.
The DM was believed by the Judge beyond everyone else's evidence
the Appeal manager was asked to consider bias, he never contacted anyone in relation to the conduct of the investigation,
At the ET the Appeal Manager maintained that he simply has to review the decision not to reinvestigate it. He confirmed that he did not write in his report about considering bias but this does not say that he did not consider it. In any case I did not follow guidance as this was my responsibility, he said as did the DM that if a member of Staff did not follow guidance even if it was following a local agreement they were responsible as were the management who allowed it to happen. In my case instructed it to happen if I had not followed the instructions I could have been deemed insubordinate.
At the ET I said that I held emails that recorded that a business case existed, I said that I was told the instructions verbally and there may be more people doing it. I agreed that the report of the Disciplinary Meeting did not mention the local agreement but I did not sign the report for the aforementioned reasons, but it had been mentioned. I produced a trail of emails from my second line manager who queried how the expenses were claimed , where he told us to claim as per the guidance by inputting the H2o we had a meeting with him where I remember that the local agreement was discussed as if we were claiming in accordance with the guidance we would not have had any need to see him, he said that he would take it away and seek clarification, he came back to us in an email and said carry on claiming as you had been. My colleague said that he never discussed the local agreement at the meeting and he was unable to recall if it was discussed, ( the Judge recorded that my colleague said it wasn't discussed ) the manager said he could not remember the content of the meeting, the email that prompted the meeting gave us authority to carry on claiming in accordance with the guidance there was no-need for the meeting other than to discuss the local agreement. The Judge accepted the word of my manager and my colleague who were both unable to remember.
This whole process has consumed me. My wife is suffering from mental health issues ( never has done before) she has put in three grievances to work in January
one has been fully upheld in relation to lack of training, new instructions being provided on a sometimes twice daily basis, inappropriate methods of training and unrealistic expectations.
the second has been heard in June, but no one has been interviewed about it and she has not been given a result.
Finally a grievance about the Departments policy about me not being able to tell her about the issue ( other colleagues have said that they would have had to tell their spouse, but my make up as well as OCD I do what I have been instructed) this is in relation to Department failing to comply with Article 8 Of the Human Rights Act ( the right to family life) they have said that they will not deal with the issue untill my ET case is resolved, she has told them that she should be treated as an individual and her issues in relation to mine are different she felt that we were going through marital problems then that I was seriously ill, she is racked by guilt that she wasn't there to support me whilst she was coming home crying over the bullying. She has been undergoing counselling as she is still coming to terms with the thought of my committing suicide, and she lacks trust of the managers, she has seen all of the inconsistencies between the managers in my investigation and the cover up between them she is concerned that training is still inadequate despite having her grievance over the lack of and inadequate training being upheld. She is aware that transfers of staff from other partner organisations over 6 months ago onto the section that she works have not been trained in the Departmental Systems. Knowing what she knows now about the Departments handling of matters has lead her to lack confidence and distrust the Management team. She is suffering constant anxiety palpitations etc. We have been financially impacted by this by my loss of job, her loss of earnings and today being declared by ESA as being fit for some work. Her employer by not dealing with the grievances have put her in this position.
I have decided that I have to move on as it has eaten away at me for the last 18 months, I have been unable to find anyone who will employ me what with my age, specialist skills and my gross misconduct I felt following the tribunal that I would have maybe won the unfair dismissal, on the basis of the entire team of witnesses for the Respondent contradicting each other, thus some lying, maybe attracting a pokey reduction as I have never denied not following the guidance! However there was a local agreement of which the manager instructed us, she authorised and approved the expenses on that basis. The Judge decided that he believed the DM who had been involved with all types of inaccuracies and contradictions with two of the other respondents and the CCHR so there we go my life is in tatters and my wife unfortunately is still experiencing problems that the Department need to resolve. My Barrister put up an excellent case however that is the end of my case I feel as though I have been a victim although I can hold my head up high as I never lied and it was proven that the respondents did, I can only hope that in time I can forgive as currently I feel bitter towards the individuals who if they had any morals about them would have told the truth. There is doubt over the integrity honesty objectivity and fairness of some if not all of the individuals The person who implemented the business case was never put under oath and her contradictory email was accepted. I have to move on but I firmly believe that what goes around comes around. I will forgive in the future and leave it in the hands of God. We now have to be strong to concentrate on my wife's current situation and in time we will forgive and not be bitter.
Sent from my iPad
i am sorry for this extremely lengthy report, but I feel that I have to share with you my case and that of my wife with between us 77 years as civil servants who have never been disciplined before, conducted ourselves fairly and in accordance with the code of conduct honesty, integrity, impartiality and fairness. We have always gone above and beyond workin out of hours in a challenging environment and never receiving any complaints from the public about my treatment of them. we have both been lucky in our health in that I have suffered no sickness absences, and my wife very few days absence in her 39 years
i came to this site back in October 2014, following my dismissal from work after 38 loyal service. I have been to an ET and have lost the case. I am detailing below what I went through and the lies and inconsistencies that came out at the tribunal. It all boils down to the Judge on the day/ days.
There are minor inconsistencies in the Judges Report of which I believe significantly impact the decision however I do not have the energy or mental health to continue with this matter on a legal basis.
I was employed as a civil servant. In December 2013 I had been informed that I was to be moved to a site across the other side of town without any consultation. I discussed with my line manger the correct processes for the move and also with his line manger and in view of the fact that I was going on annual leave, i was advised that if I didn't like it I should put in a formal grievance which I did.
On 06/01/14 my line manager put in an allegation to internal investigations that He had overheard me talking to a colleague saying that I had paid for my holiday from my expenses and that he had checked my recent work and found lots of paperwork missing. He was telephoned by Iv on 08/01 and asked to whom I was talking, he said that he didn't know as he was not the person who overheard me. In his witness statement he said that he had heard me in early January 2014. ( Early January 2014 I was not in the office I was still in America) I did not returnuntil 13/01 . Totally inconsistent
The internal investigations Department did an investigation by getting my expenses applications. they never looked at what visits I was alleged to have not completed. The Iv established that I was claiming for excess travel and not inputting a home to office deduction. They also alleged that I had inflated my mileage claims and not suspended customers benefit immediately in accordance with the current current guidance( the guidance at the time of the visits was properly adhered too. The long and short of it was that my line manager was asked to ask me to provide various documents in relation to the expenses of which I was claiming which I duly did ( I was not aware that I was under investigation) he was interviewed and said at the interview that he was aware of our claiming of the expenses and that we ( myself and a colleague) were not inputting the home to office deduction but he thought that it was because of a local agreement made with our previous manager. He had been job shadowing her for a period of 12 months and once he was no longer shadowing her was sat in the same office on the same floor.
The Iv made an appointment for me to be interviewed regarding expenses irregularities, as I was aware of the local agreement I was not unduly fazed by this I simply thought that I would have explain about the agreement that my previous manager had organised by way of a business plan I had a copy of an email that referred to the business plan I also asked for my colleague to accompany me as a witness. I was denied this I found out later that he also was under suspicion for claiming irregularly as well. I was interviewed about expenses why I was claiming for the move to an alternate place of work and why did I not suspend people's benefit immediately. There was two and a half pages of a 70 + page transcript in relation to home to office deduction and a failure by the IV to take any evidence from me. He did not ask me about fabricated visits which arose at the Disciplinary Meeting. He was dismissive of my answers and cut me short and at the end told me who the Disciplinary Manager was going to be,
I told in my interview letter and was reminded that I was unable to talk to anyone within the Department about the matter. ( this included my wife as she worked in the same department and for the same team of managers) I waited for 6 months to receive an invitation to the Disciplinary Meeting and during this time was unable to discuss this matter with my wife, she was coming home from work crying as she had started to be bullied by her line manager (following) 39 years service of never having been bullied before. Coincidence or what.?
when I was informed of the Disciplinary meeting I was hit wth Disciplinary for inflated mileage, not taking the home to office deduction not suspending people's benefit and fabricated visits, the last supported by a document containing 300 redacted names addresses and NI numbers. All that was provided was a date and wether they had been able to locate the paperwork or not. They had failed to look on the Departmental Systems to establish who held the paperwork and where it was likely to be. Fortunately I have OCD and retained my own additional records from which I spent a week tracing all of the paperwork my colleague was unable to do that to support himself as he relied on the Departmental systems. At the interview the DM discussed why I was claiming expenses which muddied the waters somewhat between the expenses and the home to office deduction, although they were linked I have since established from the Field Work Record that by this time they were satisfied that I was entitled to expenses. I provided evidence by way of emails that confirmed that there was a business case I told her that I clarified with the line manager the effect of it and that she instructed me to claim my expenses by way of Actual Mileage with no home to office deduction as it had been agreed at a local agreement. Following which she authorised and approved the same each week when I applied for my expenses. I was aware that I was not following guidance, but following instruction.
A week later I found that my colleague had been dismissed on the day that I had been interviewed for the same reason. During work at that time I was suicidal my head was mush and I was still unable to tell my wife and my TU rep was on holiday. When I eventually was handed the letter by my line manager who made the false allegation in the first place I left the office and took myself off to commit suicide. Whilst at the spot I came to my senses and realised that I had not done anything wrong. I told my wife about my dismissal following which she understood why she was being bullied. She had thought that we were going through marital problems and then most recently that I was seriously ill.
During the ET hearing I was asked by the Respondents Barrister to look at the report and to confirm it was the report, which I did I was asked if it included my mentioning of the local agreement I replied that the report did not but I had mentioned it. I was asked if I had signed the report as true, I replied that I had not, when questioned further about this I by the respondent I went on to explain that the minutes had been given to me following dismissal, that I had been suicidal and I had not looked at them. I had only looked at them when preparing my appeal at which time it was beyond the 10 days given to amend the report.
The judge recorded that I had signed the record of the meeting and that I had agreed that the local agreement was not mentioned in the meeting .
i had in fact said that I had not signed the minutes and that The local agreement had not been mentioned in the minutes for the Disciplinary Meeting)
When I read them In detail realised that it was not a true reflection of the meeting, so my preparation for the Appeal was so much more detailed I wrote everything down As I was determined that it should be recorded and handed a copy to the Appeal Manager. My Union rep dealt with the matter of Bias.
the Appeal manager upheld my appeal on three counts but found that I had failed to input the H2O deduction and so it was a fair dismissal. He accepted an email from my previous line manager that said that she could not remember discussing anything with me but if she had have done it She would not have told me to disregard the guidance.
At this point I made contact with my colleague who had also been dismissed. He had been told in his report that he was investigated because of my insistence, invariably he had not wanted to make contact with me. It transpires that the manager had already told the investigator prior to my interview that My colleague was claiming his expenses in the same way and incidentally there may have been others. No others were ever looked at.
i was denied any evidence that supported my case. Through a SARs request . I obtained the Field Work Record which is a system record that is dated and timed of contemporaneous notes of the investigation which should be factual, non opinionated and record all aspects of the investigation, relating to Findings witnesses etc. throughout the record the investigator makes derogatory comments about me records discussions with the Decision Maker one in which she describes me as manipulative and persuasive and can see how managers can be bullied by him. The IV stated at the ET that they were just his notes, he had initially decided that the case was for a prosecution and that I was not entitled to any expenses in which case those notes would have been for disclosure. My training is that all notes should be factual not opinionated She stated that I was definitely not on Detached Duty, ( it was actually accepted in the report that I was on Detached Duty ) although I was not as I was not officially on Detached duty on the departmental site I was actually told that I was placed at my alternate office following the business case. My official base remained at my previous site. When it came to the tribunal the Iv included in his statement some 18 months after the conversation that he had made a mistake over the recording of that information and said that after a conversation with the DM the DM had told him that it was the line manager had told her that I was manipulative and bullying ( in total contradiction to the second interview with my line manager in which I was described as completely professional, my line manager we found out at the Tribunal had himself been disciplined ( final written warning although it was given to him verbally over the phone and he only ever saw the letter when it was added as an exhibit at my ET hearing) for his involvement and by the time he made his witness statement he described me as being manipulative.) certainly not consistent with his interview.
Their was a record of a telephone call with my previous line manager which completely contradicts her email she stated that I was already on detached duty prior to her arrival and in any case a copy of the business case should be held on my personnel file if there was one. ( there was clearly a business case as it was detailed in an email from her which I provided) they have never been able to provide the business case although the Departmental guidance on retention policy covers that this should have been retained.) It came out at the ET that although I had been requesting a copy of her interview and had been advised that she had never been interviewed, she had in fact been interviewed and the copy of that taped interview had been destroyed prior to the ET hearing with simply a record of the email response recorded in a report in which it had been determined that she would not be disciplined over the matter.
i received a copy of an interview with the line manager who was authorising my expenses immediately prior to my dismissal the Iv spent a considerable time in asking leading questions to get my line manager to say that I was a bully, but my line manager said that I had acted in a totally professional way. The line manager said that he held his hands up as he had authorised the expenses and he was aware that there was no home to office deduction.
From the SAR's request I also received an email in which my line manager was asking for advice from HR in whether to suspend me in which it refers to my having been interviewed and being guilty of two counts of gross misconduct. He copied in the Iv and the DM, the IV told him to withdraw him email immediately as it seriously compromises the investigation. At the ET The Iv said that he had not told my line manager of the result of the interview, my line manager said that he had heard the information from his line manager ( The DM) and the DM said that she had not told the line manager. Someone somewhere is lying the Judge found that the DM was more believable ( what did the line manager have to gain or lose by telling truth nothing, what did the DM have to lose by being involved prior to her making the decision to Dismiss possibly the case)
The DM in her witness statement said that I had masked my expenses claims, however having already seen the Iv having to withdraw that statement whilst under oath she made changes to her statement when she took the oath saying that she had realised that the mileage was not masked in September last year, she clearly put it into her statement that I had masked them. She got the IV to make a statement 18 months after the event to the effect that his contemporaneous notes of the conversation were incorrectly recorded at the time. She told the Tribunal that she had not had any involvement with investigation prior to being the DM, She stated that she had not told my line manager about the interview whereas the line manager said that she had. She said that she had never seen the first interview with my line manager or his second interview with the line manager or the interview with the original line manager. The Field work record ( contemporaneous notes ) shows that the IV records that she was holding onto all the files including my colleague who was also dismissed as they were all linked before she could make a decision. It was also confirmed at the ET when a copy of my line managers Disciplinary Records were provided for the second days hearing that the DM had in fact sent an email to her ( SEO) Manager saying that she had checked for the typing errors returned it to the IV for amendments and it was now for her to consider disciplinary action. she stated that she had not looked at the report ( how she can check the typing errors without reading it is beyond me)
She further stated at the ET that the record of the discussion with HR was not fully documented, as she says that she she told them that I said that I was instructed by my line manager and that other officers may have been involved. The report says that I felt that I was able to do it as my line manager authorised the claims. The advise came back that gross misconduct would normally result in Instant dismissal however she had to satisfy herself that there was not a culture. The DM said at the ET that if a member of staff did something that was against any guidance ( the department has hundreds of thousands of pages on the intranet) it was the line managers responsibility to refer the matter to internal investigations, not to point it out. If they missed the incorrect guidance being followed they were all up for disciplinary as well as the member of staff.
The DM was believed by the Judge beyond everyone else's evidence
the Appeal manager was asked to consider bias, he never contacted anyone in relation to the conduct of the investigation,
At the ET the Appeal Manager maintained that he simply has to review the decision not to reinvestigate it. He confirmed that he did not write in his report about considering bias but this does not say that he did not consider it. In any case I did not follow guidance as this was my responsibility, he said as did the DM that if a member of Staff did not follow guidance even if it was following a local agreement they were responsible as were the management who allowed it to happen. In my case instructed it to happen if I had not followed the instructions I could have been deemed insubordinate.
At the ET I said that I held emails that recorded that a business case existed, I said that I was told the instructions verbally and there may be more people doing it. I agreed that the report of the Disciplinary Meeting did not mention the local agreement but I did not sign the report for the aforementioned reasons, but it had been mentioned. I produced a trail of emails from my second line manager who queried how the expenses were claimed , where he told us to claim as per the guidance by inputting the H2o we had a meeting with him where I remember that the local agreement was discussed as if we were claiming in accordance with the guidance we would not have had any need to see him, he said that he would take it away and seek clarification, he came back to us in an email and said carry on claiming as you had been. My colleague said that he never discussed the local agreement at the meeting and he was unable to recall if it was discussed, ( the Judge recorded that my colleague said it wasn't discussed ) the manager said he could not remember the content of the meeting, the email that prompted the meeting gave us authority to carry on claiming in accordance with the guidance there was no-need for the meeting other than to discuss the local agreement. The Judge accepted the word of my manager and my colleague who were both unable to remember.
This whole process has consumed me. My wife is suffering from mental health issues ( never has done before) she has put in three grievances to work in January
one has been fully upheld in relation to lack of training, new instructions being provided on a sometimes twice daily basis, inappropriate methods of training and unrealistic expectations.
the second has been heard in June, but no one has been interviewed about it and she has not been given a result.
Finally a grievance about the Departments policy about me not being able to tell her about the issue ( other colleagues have said that they would have had to tell their spouse, but my make up as well as OCD I do what I have been instructed) this is in relation to Department failing to comply with Article 8 Of the Human Rights Act ( the right to family life) they have said that they will not deal with the issue untill my ET case is resolved, she has told them that she should be treated as an individual and her issues in relation to mine are different she felt that we were going through marital problems then that I was seriously ill, she is racked by guilt that she wasn't there to support me whilst she was coming home crying over the bullying. She has been undergoing counselling as she is still coming to terms with the thought of my committing suicide, and she lacks trust of the managers, she has seen all of the inconsistencies between the managers in my investigation and the cover up between them she is concerned that training is still inadequate despite having her grievance over the lack of and inadequate training being upheld. She is aware that transfers of staff from other partner organisations over 6 months ago onto the section that she works have not been trained in the Departmental Systems. Knowing what she knows now about the Departments handling of matters has lead her to lack confidence and distrust the Management team. She is suffering constant anxiety palpitations etc. We have been financially impacted by this by my loss of job, her loss of earnings and today being declared by ESA as being fit for some work. Her employer by not dealing with the grievances have put her in this position.
I have decided that I have to move on as it has eaten away at me for the last 18 months, I have been unable to find anyone who will employ me what with my age, specialist skills and my gross misconduct I felt following the tribunal that I would have maybe won the unfair dismissal, on the basis of the entire team of witnesses for the Respondent contradicting each other, thus some lying, maybe attracting a pokey reduction as I have never denied not following the guidance! However there was a local agreement of which the manager instructed us, she authorised and approved the expenses on that basis. The Judge decided that he believed the DM who had been involved with all types of inaccuracies and contradictions with two of the other respondents and the CCHR so there we go my life is in tatters and my wife unfortunately is still experiencing problems that the Department need to resolve. My Barrister put up an excellent case however that is the end of my case I feel as though I have been a victim although I can hold my head up high as I never lied and it was proven that the respondents did, I can only hope that in time I can forgive as currently I feel bitter towards the individuals who if they had any morals about them would have told the truth. There is doubt over the integrity honesty objectivity and fairness of some if not all of the individuals The person who implemented the business case was never put under oath and her contradictory email was accepted. I have to move on but I firmly believe that what goes around comes around. I will forgive in the future and leave it in the hands of God. We now have to be strong to concentrate on my wife's current situation and in time we will forgive and not be bitter.
Sent from my iPad
Comment