Suspended but asked what I did wrong
Options
Comments
-
Both of whom would tell you exactly what you have been told here! Not believing it doesn't make it incorrect. There is NO right to be told the details of the investigation, or to be given witness statements or evidence ( you do realise, don't you, that the purpose of the investigation is to obtain those???). These are rights attached to a disciplinary. Suspension is a neutral act, to allow for investigation.Well, I think an employment lawyer may take a very different view to that, because if I was suspended (even on full pay) and not been told why - no details whatsoever, then I would either take advice form my union, or contact a specialist firm of solicitors.
And regardless of what you think, so far there is no evidence of the employer riding roughshod over the employee. They are investigating. At the end of that there may be nothing. At the end of that there might be something. But if it is the latter, that does not mean that the something isn't true. We cannot assume any allegations at all, or guilt or innocence - all we know is that the employer is investigating something. And there is no evidence that they are not conducting that investigation within the bounds of the law.0 -
I'm somewhat with the OP on this.
A suspension and an investigation, will come with formal letters from HR saying that they are carrying out a process which could lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. Given the severe psychological effect this is likely to have, any employer which claims to value the mental health of its employees, needs to show restraint. Even if the OP is cleared on all counts, the stress of the event is a "punishment" ( in the psychological sense ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_execution
Imagine getting a phone call from the police, asking you to call in at your local station, and answer a few questions ; being told that you are under caution, and while you have the right to remain silent, it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court. The police ( should ) only do that, if they have reasonable grounds.
HR have to recognise that people could make all sorts of allegations against others, just to get those others threatened by HR.
I can't see why the OP had to be suspended, nor even why an investigation couldn't be carried out without informing him. If the OP was acting badly towards a particular person, then a suspension would keep them apart ; but the OP works from home. If the OP was misbehaving commercially, then oversight procedures being focused on him, would spot anything amiss ; and allowing the OP to continue business as usual, oblivious to the investigation, would be more likely to provide evidence.0 -
Both of whom would tell you exactly what you have been told here! Not believing it doesn't make it incorrect. There is NO right to be told the details of the investigation, or to be given witness statements or evidence ( you do realise, don't you, that the purpose of the investigation is to obtain those???). These are rights attached to a disciplinary. Suspension is a neutral act, to allow for investigation.
And regardless of what you think, so far there is no evidence of the employer riding roughshod over the employee. They are investigating. At the end of that there may be nothing. At the end of that there might be something. But if it is the latter, that does not mean that the something isn't true. We cannot assume any allegations at all, or guilt or innocence - all we know is that the employer is investigating something. And there is no evidence that they are not conducting that investigation within the bounds of the law.
You are deluded.
Being suspended without being told why - unbelievable.0 -
I'm somewhat with the OP on this.
A suspension and an investigation, will come with formal letters from HR saying that they are carrying out a process which could lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. Given the severe psychological effect this is likely to have, any employer which claims to value the mental health of its employees, needs to show restraint. Even if the OP is cleared on all counts, the stress of the event is a "punishment" ( in the psychological sense ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_execution
Imagine getting a phone call from the police, asking you to call in at your local station, and answer a few questions ; being told that you are under caution, and while you have the right to remain silent, it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court. The police ( should ) only do that, if they have reasonable grounds.
HR have to recognise that people could make all sorts of allegations against others, just to get those others threatened by HR.
I can't see why the OP had to be suspended, nor even why an investigation couldn't be carried out without informing him. If the OP was acting badly towards a particular person, then a suspension would keep them apart ; but the OP works from home. If the OP was misbehaving commercially, then oversight procedures being focused on him, would spot anything amiss ; and allowing the OP to continue business as usual, oblivious to the investigation, would be more likely to provide evidence.
Again, I am going to point out that this is opinion - not fact. You are confusing the two. The opinion is nice, and actually, nobody here would disagree with the opinion. It would be nicer if things had been done differently. But the fact is that the employer does not have to do them differently. There is no law that will force the employer to do this differently. So agreeing with the OP may be comforting for them, but it doesn't achieve any practical result.0 -
I'm somewhat with the OP on this.
A suspension and an investigation, will come with formal letters from HR saying that they are carrying out a process which could lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. Given the severe psychological effect this is likely to have, any employer which claims to value the mental health of its employees, needs to show restraint. Even if the OP is cleared on all counts, the stress of the event is a "punishment" ( in the psychological sense ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_execution
Imagine getting a phone call from the police, asking you to call in at your local station, and answer a few questions ; being told that you are under caution, and while you have the right to remain silent, it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court. The police ( should ) only do that, if they have reasonable grounds.
HR have to recognise that people could make all sorts of allegations against others, just to get those others threatened by HR.
I can't see why the OP had to be suspended, nor even why an investigation couldn't be carried out without informing him. If the OP was acting badly towards a particular person, then a suspension would keep them apart ; but the OP works from home. If the OP was misbehaving commercially, then oversight procedures being focused on him, would spot anything amiss ; and allowing the OP to continue business as usual, oblivious to the investigation, would be more likely to provide evidence.
Which is all completely irrelevant to the OP situation. This is not a police investigation into a criminal matter.
You can debate all you like about whether the employer could have behaved "nicer" but there is no doubt whatsoever (based on what has been posted here) that they are behaving perfectly lawfully.
As I have pointed out the employer is incurring significant cost by having the OP suspended on full pay. However that is their choice and one that they clearly consider appropriate under the circumstances.
Remember too that we have, inevitably, only heard one side of the story.0 -
You are deluded.
Being suspended without being told why - unbelievable.
No, s/he is not but you clearly have little understanding of employment law.
There is nothing whatever wrong (legally) with being suspended whilst an employer investigates allegations and there is no automatic right to know what those allegations are. The employee may have a right to obtain certain information by making a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act but that is all. Some at least of information is likely to be exempt from disclosure and in any case the request could take a couple of months to be processed.
As has been repeatedly explained, if and only if the matter proceeds to a disciplinary hearing then the employer will have to disclose far more information or risk the hearing being procedurally unfair. Even then, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to withhold some information or redact parts of documents.
This is not a criminal court where charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To dismiss fairly (in law) an employer only needs a reasonable belief that the misconduct took place.
It really is not helping the OP to pretend otherwise.0 -
If the OP's HR department doesn't understand the effect on the OP, they need better training ; but if they do understand, but do it anyway, they need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.any employer which claims to value the mental health of its employees
I expect the OP's employer has some kind of internal policy, about not threatening or harassing one's co-workers. Threatening dismissal ( as any disciplinary procedure does ) with no explanation, is likely to have a long-lasting effect on the OP's performance. If they are cleared, I would be expecting some kind of apology ; for the stated lack of trust.0 -
If the OP's HR department doesn't understand the effect on the OP, they need better training ; but if they do understand, but do it anyway, they need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
I expect the OP's employer has some kind of internal policy, about not threatening or harassing one's co-workers. Threatening dismissal ( as any disciplinary procedure does ) with no explanation, is likely to have a long-lasting effect on the OP's performance. If they are cleared, I would be expecting some kind of apology ; for the stated lack of trust.
But there is no disciplinary procedure yet and there may not be one at all! So, there is no threat of dismissal!
They cannot be cleared unless they are "charged" with something and they may well not be.
Why should the employer apologise for investigating a complaint? That surely is the proper thing to do? They have a duty to both parties.0 -
The investigation isn't the problem, it is the putting of the OP under a sword of Damocles. The employer should apologise, if they have put the OP through a stressful experience without probable cause. I bet that if the OP accused the CEO of calling them a !!!!!!! !!!!, HR would not suspend the CEO, and call them in for an investigation meeting.Why should the employer apologise for investigating a complaint?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards