help. Xmas do... suspected of doing DRUGS!!!!!!

pitkin2020

u264047 wrote: »

i'm aware of how it looks, but it is what it is. Surely a company cannot make a judgement over a ailment supported with a doctors note?

They certainly can't make a judgement or their opinion official. The problem I see at the moment is the main things you are getting disciplined on is your threatening bahaviour and productivity. The behaviour issue could be classed as gross misconduct, your productivity classed as a warning, if its the first time its been brought up.

Then you have all the mudslinging about using drugs, offering drugs, threatening collegues out of work and infatuations with collegues. It makes it look like they are trying to get several things on you for a conviction so to speak. You have then got yourself signed off just before the disciplinary.

I fully understand this is a stressful situation and most people in your situation would have done the same, but I can't see how dragging this out another 2 weeks is going to help you. You have a further 2 weeks of this "not knowing" eating away at you. Also in reality to your company unless they were aware you were on anti depressants a 2 week sick leave for stress looks unbelievable as gebnerlaly speaking people don't get stressed and are then healed within such a short time. If you let them know at the time you were first prescribed them in December, then its not going to look as bad for this incident. You should always let your company know if you are on presciption drugs.

Zazen999

Then surely.....all you have to say is

I am on drugs, he is right.

The anti depressant i'm taking is called Citalopram. I began usage at the end of the first week of December.... shortly after my second burglary. After speaking with my Doctor and reading the pamphlet that comes with them, it seems they could account for much of the 'mistakes' and sickness i've suffered, the doctor was also unsure about how they would react with alcohol.

I apologise profusely for the swearing but as you can see, being accused of being on drugs upset me and I reacted to the 'druggie' accusations inappropriately.

I have now stopped drinking any alcohol whatsoever whilst on these, I was unaware at the time the effects that they might have. I have no infatuations with anyone in the office, indeed I am happily married.

Any remarks about supplying drugs were made in complete jest; and I apologise if these have been taken the wrong way.

PinheadSK

u264047 wrote: »

Well i've summarised the statements below:

Statement 1 - Sales Manager - Heard snorting something, verbally aggressive + felt physically threatened. had extremely large pupils showed increased emotions.
As has been suggested, this could be a result of poor lighting at the venue. Some people have suggested that because he called you a 'smackhead' that means you were taking Heroin and therefore your pupils would actually be very small. Whilst this is correct, it is irrelevant. It simply shows a level of ignorance on your managers part of modern drug culture, it is a common used term for any drug user made by those without knowledge. As for verbally aggressive, he needs to quantify this with what you said to him.

Statement 2 -Colleague #1 - Matt seemed alright but annoyed at being accused. Didn't see shouting or finger pointing but just kept out of it.
No comment to make here...

Statement 3 - Colleague #2 - heard telling other manager to f*** off. Said I was well behaved. Said I didn't look like I was on drugs.
What does someone who is on drugs look like?

Statement 4 - manager I told to f*** off - Asked me to leave several times. Invading sales managers space. Said it looked aggressive and felt something was going to happen. I was making funny mannerisms with my tongue (!!!!!!)
The only person who can state that personal space is being invaded is the person it is happening to. Everyone's personal space boundaries are different. This space varies between the sexes, between relative height differences, between different relationships and between different relative physical builds... and many more reasons. The manager needs to describe exactly what you were doing to look aggresive i.e. veins 'popping', clenched fists, clenched teeth etc. As for the managers feeling, nothing physical did actually happen so he misread the situation... what else did he misread? I have no comment to make about the tongue thing!

Statement 5 - Office apprentice - I offered her cocaine before the work do the week before this one. Said she was told I was joking but she is not so sure now. Talked about my infatuations with several girls in office.
This comment is by far the most damaging to you imho - I have no advice I'm afraid. As for your 'infatuations', these are completely irrelevant to this situation and you should request they are withdrawn. It simply doesn't matter here whether you where sh@gging the entire office (as long as you weren't doing it at work!). Maybe she's a little aggrieved that she hasn't been the subject of one of your 'infatuations'.

Statement 6 - Colleague #3 - Said everyone was drunk. I was up in sales managers face. Really close. I was aggressive in my manner. Eyes did not look right then and at previous weeks xmas party, where she asked if i had taken anything. Been strange for a couple weeks making silly mistakes. said I would have made time to see doctor in past.
Again, the behaviour needs to be described. Again, the venue lighting and the fact that 'everyone was drunk' may be a factor. I presume Colleague 3 was also drunk and therefore, their observational skills impaired. Perhaps your eyes were 'normal' but his/hers weren't seeing straight! If this person is responsible for monitoring your work, then these mistakes should have been dealt with and monitored. If not, who are they to pass comment? As for seeing a doctor, this is an opinion and should be identifiied as such. Only you know when you need to see a Doctor.

Statement 7 - Colleague #4 - had a dig at performance at rare intervals over last 12 months. But unable to give specifics, but the gist was my work was below par.
See above comment about your work performance.

As you can see everything has been thrown at this but the kitchen sink.
The above statements by your colleagues appear to indicate that they were asked specifically about your performance at work previously and any indications that it has been below par. I would guess they have also been asked their opinion on why this might be. From this I would draw the conclusion that they are almost solely going for the drugs angle, with the behaviour and performance as a back-up. Generally, if you ask someone a question with a specific direction, they will give you an answer that is angled towards it. This can be countered with your own directional questions.

Like I said... think i'm screwed.
No, you just need to find the cracks and then wedge them wide open! Don't forget to look for procedural technicalities either.

Good luck!

rupee99

There is some excellent analysis in the previous few posts, the only area I disagree with is the postponement of the hearing. It matters not what it looks like, the doctor has "signed you off" and, as far as the law is concerned if they force you to attend it will be very bad for them in any subsequent proceedings. The condition you have will impair your cognitive skills when added to the pressure of the situation and it will be almost impossible for them to show that you had a fair hearing insomuch as you will be unable to properly defend yourself.

On the hearing itself they have produced no credible evidence to support the allegation of drug taking on the night or at all, the allegations about your conduct stem from this and the inebriation of all parties. You should be able to successfully argue that if the unfound and unwarranted allegations had not been made in the first instance the subsequent events wouldn't have happened and that therefore you have no case to answer.

bristol_pilot

rupee99 wrote: »

On the hearing itself they have produced no credible evidence to support the allegation of drug taking on the night or at all, the allegations about your conduct stem from this and the inebriation of all parties. You should be able to successfully argue that if the unfound and unwarranted allegations had not been made in the first instance the subsequent events wouldn't have happened and that therefore you have no case to answer.

If the company thought there was no case to answer, then the matter would not have proceeded from investigation to disciplinary. I'm convinced that HR have taken the sales manager's and office apprentice's statements at face value without applying any sort of critical thinking skills and believe they have two independent witnesses to the allegations of drug taking / supply. The disciplinary is not a court of law, unfortunately. It is still necessary for the OP to present as assertive and robust a defence as possible - he must seek legal advice this coming week.

bristol_pilot

OP - do the Company know about your recent medical history? Depression following 2 burglaries and prescription anti-depressants? Also the cold, causing you to sniff. This should definitely be included as part of your defence, as it will explain some of the tittle tattle / performance issues which are contained within some of the witness statements and will also help reassure HR that any performance-related issues that may be apparent at the moment are temporary and should be treated as a welfare rather than a disciplinary issue. Even if your line manager IS aware of this, don't assume that HR is also.

rupee99

bristol_pilot wrote: »

If the company thought there was no case to answer, then the matter would not have proceeded from investigation to disciplinary. I'm convinced that HR have taken the sales manager's and office apprentice's statements at face value without applying any sort of critical thinking skills and believe they have two independent witnesses to the allegations of drug taking / supply. The disciplinary is not a court of law, unfortunately. It is still necessary for the OP to present as assertive and robust a defence as possible - he must seek legal advice this coming week.

I should have made it clear that it was my opinion that there was no case to answer based upon the facts and circumstances put out here.

The company may believe that even if the drug allegations fail they would be successful on conduct. This is a general misconception amongst non legal professionals, you cannot be held responsible, unless you break criminal law, if you were provoked into actions by wrongful conduct by the other party.

If this is the case then quite apart from any grievance raised by the OP the employer then has a duty itself to investigate the conduct of the sales manager.

poet123

The fact that the company has taken it further does not show that there actually is a case to answer. It does not show that an outsider would agree there was a case to answer. HR depratments (like any other) are only as good as their best employee, and the sum of collective depth of knowledge of internal procedures, and more importantly, of the law.

I agree with the poster above who has mentioned that the prescribed drugs mat very well be at the heart of this matter and deserve to be considered as such. It is all very wellsaying he does not have a case to answer legally or procedurally but he is under suspicion.

If that suspicion rests on his performance and behaviour in the weeks prior to the incident, and durring that time he was taking prescribed medication which has side effects similar to the ones people have reported, then clearly there is a link.

If I was the OP I would be doing several things,
1. Getting specialist employment law advice.

2. Making my recent medical records available to my employer.

3. Not atttending the hearing if I could not be sure I was mentally and physically up to it.

4. Making it clear that it is this matter,and this matter alone, which is causing me stress and that when I feel well enough to cope with the hearing I will be attending, and mounting a robust defence, and considering what other action to take against individuals.

bristol_pilot

rupee99 wrote: »

The company may believe that even if the drug allegations fail they would be successful on conduct. This is a general misconception amongst non legal professionals, you cannot be held responsible, unless you break criminal law, if you were provoked into actions by wrongful conduct by the other party.

This sort of gem is absolute gold dust and the sort of valuable advice that can be given by a legal professional. The OP should seek professional legal representation this week, first thing on Monday. He will most likely have to pay for advice, but it will be money well spent.

rupee - do you know if there is any legal privilege in matters relating to disciplinary hearings, or are the sale's manager's orignial email and office girl's statements potentially actionable as libel? I'm not thinking the OP will proceed to trial, but could maybe get the statements withdrawn.

euronorris

On the enlarged pupils thing. Of course they were enlarged......you had been drinking!

I suspect the Sales Manager's pupils were also enlarged? Do you remember? Might be a useful point for you.