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

robredz

They will be extremely careful, as to how they proceed now, as much of the "evidence" they thought they had is on shifting sand, it is even debatable as to any of it could even be construed as " in works time" being as the premises were a pub toilet at midnight open to the general public, a random punter could have been sniffing with cold in an adjacent cubicle, there are so many variables in the mix that HR will be dizzy trying to make sense of it all. I feel that they are only keeping on with it now to save face. OP must be very wary, of offers and communications from HR imho.

DirectDebacle

robredz wrote: »

. I feel that they are only keeping on with it now to save face. OP must be very wary, of offers and communications from HR imho.

Totally agree with this analysis.

IMO H.R. have mis-managed this situation from the start. If the situation has not already reached the point of no return then it soon will.

As I understand it two employees at a works do, both under the influence of alochol, have a misunderstanding over a remark intended as a joke. (You say the sales manager some days later intimated that his remark to you was intended as a joke.)

This alcohol fuelled dispute quickly gets out of hand as they tend to do. The result is that the manager unwisely announces to the rest of your colleagues that he has found you taking drugs in the toilets. This is an allegation without any credible basis and of course, at the very least, a public humiliation of you. Naturally this puts a damper on the party and most people go home. Some others go separately to other places to continue drinking. Later on the factions meet up in another public house, with even more alcohol in them than before and understanderbly the issue is 'discussed' again.

At the meeting with HR when the sales manager intimated that his remark was intended as a joke is when HR should have recognised that this was an incident generated mainly from too much alcohol and taken no further action in respect of the allegations made against you. The behaviour of the manager which initiated the incident should then be examined by them separately.

Unfortunately this approach was not taken and you are where you are.

H.R. cannot be taking any drug allegations seriously. If they are then they are making a serious mistake.

It has been alleged that not only were you taking drugs at a works function but further that you are a drugs dealer and have offered to supply drugs at your place of work.

If HR are giving any credence to these allegations then quite rightly you should be suspended and HR should have passed this to the police for investigation. Supplying or attempting to supply controlled drugs is a serious criminal offence and will attract a substantial custodial sentence upon conviction.

HR should also have suspended the female colleague who made this allegation. Did she ask you to if you could supply her with drugs? If so she was attempting to possess controlled drugs. Another serious offence.

Apparently she told you that the particular type of music she liked required the mis-use of drugs to enjoy it. If sniffing sounds coming from a toilet cubicle is sufficient evidence for HR to suspend you on grounds of drug abuse then surely, according to HR reasoning, enjoying a particular type of music is also sufficient evidence. The mind boggles.

In any event her statement is discredited.

I do not believe H.R. consider you either a drugs user or dealer but are unable at this stage to consider going against a manager.

As far as sustained threats go then these are even more applicable to the sales manager. He has made a serious allegation against you in public which not only has threatened to damage your reputation but also your livelihood and future career prospects. He has made threats as to your loss of liberty and the consequent separation of you from your wife and family. Furthermore he has attempted to coerce you into admitting something you did not do with some sort of promise that he would 'back you'. All of this, by the accounts of others, that at the time he was under the influence of alcohol.

I would imagine that at the time you would have found this behaviour very threatening and your reaction seen as self defence.

I consider the investigation conducted by HR so far to be thoroughly unprofessional and biased toward supporting the manager rather than seeking the facts. Where are the statements from the colleagues that witnessed the public announcement of the alleged drug misuse? What was their general reaction, surprise, disbelief, we always suspected that he was? Important evidence not apparently examined.

I heartily agree with the advice given by others that you really do need to receive some expert independant advice.

It may still be possible for H.R. to be persuaded to re-eaximine their decision and drop this ludicrous enquiry. I have no expertise in these matters but it would seem that if it continues on its current path then no-one will benefit from it and further damage will be caused not only to you but to HR and the company as a whole.

If my summary of events above is correct it may not be too late for an experienced employment lawyer to resolve this for you before it reaches a disciplinary hearing. Perhaps a union could recommend a firm or tell you which firms they use. You urgently need professional help on this one.

If a proposal for HR to get them out of this hole and save face could be found then I am sure they would be eager to consider it.

I wish you luck.

rupee99

DirectDebacle wrote: »

................
If a proposal for HR to get them out of this hole and save face could be found then I am sure they would be eager to consider it.

I wish you luck.

An excellent analysis, I think, with as far as I can see only one factual error, the OP mentioned that they had been at a function and a group of them went to another pub/bar where the altercation took place. I don't think it was a case of meeting again afterwards, if it had been, a "meeting in the street" so to speak the company would have no basis whatsoever to bring disciplinary proceedings unless physical violence or a criminal offence had occurred. In the case of the latter the matter would HAVE to be reported to the police who would need to conclude their investigations before any internal disciplinary procedures could be invoked, although they could suspend the OP on full pay.

I heartily agree with your sentiments in the final paragraph reproduced above. This is custom made for someone to say to both parties "this has gotten out of hand lets drop the matter." The major obstacle to that, in my view, is finding the right person to say it. If the OP or company find a lawyer the intervention of such persons tends to put barriers up, if someone senior from the company does it the lower levels of management will have a sense of betrayal, and in any event are likely to be prevented by their insurers or legal counsel (it would amount to an admission of wrong-doing. I am afraid it is an extension of what happens when a society become litigious, no-one feels they can say sorry.

u264047

rupee99 wrote: »

An excellent analysis, I think, with as far as I can see only one factual error, the OP mentioned that they had been at a function and a group of them went to another pub/bar where the altercation took place. I don't think it was a case of meeting again afterwards, if it had been, a "meeting in the street" so to speak the company would have no basis whatsoever to bring disciplinary proceedings unless physical violence or a criminal offence had occurred. In the case of the latter the matter would HAVE to be reported to the police who would need to conclude their investigations before any internal disciplinary procedures could be invoked, although they could suspend the OP on full pay.

Well, the accusation of drugs sniffing occurred in a bar AFTER the work organised event.

When everyone left in protest, my work friend stayed with me and said "well, if you didn't do it, then we should seek them out"

We quickly realised that in a town centre with so many bars this wouldn't be easy, so we went to one place for a drink, it was dead so we moved on to another and as luck would have it, they were in that one.

I decided this would be a good opportunity to clear my name. Would this count as 'meeting on the street' or not?

Anihilator

u264047 wrote: »

Well, the accusation of drugs sniffing occurred in a bar AFTER the work organised event.

When everyone left in protest, my work friend stayed with me and said "well, if you didn't do it, then we should seek them out"

We quickly realised that in a town centre with so many bars this wouldn't be easy, so we went to one place for a drink, it was dead so we moved on to another and as luck would have it, they were in that one.

I decided this would be a good opportunity to clear my name. Would this count as 'meeting on the street' or not?

Tbh I dont really see what this person is getting at. It was a work xmas night out. It is covered by work discliplinaries whether it occurred in a bar or on the street.

As for the rest. I sincerly hope your friend hasnt put in their statement you tried or were going to try and "seek them out"

If so your finished.

rupee99

u264047 wrote: »

Well, the accusation of drugs sniffing occurred in a bar AFTER the work organised event.

When everyone left in protest, my work friend stayed with me and said "well, if you didn't do it, then we should seek them out"

We quickly realised that in a town centre with so many bars this wouldn't be easy, so we went to one place for a drink, it was dead so we moved on to another and as luck would have it, they were in that one.

I decided this would be a good opportunity to clear my name. Would this count as 'meeting on the street' or not?

Probably best not to mention what your friend said.

u264047

Anihilator wrote: »

As for the rest. I sincerly hope your friend hasnt put in their statement you tried or were going to try and "seek them out"

If so your finished.

Yeah, he did put that in his statement. Why would I be finished because of this reason?

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

Tbh I dont really see what this person is getting at. It was a work xmas night out. It is covered by work discliplinaries whether it occurred in a bar or on the street.

As for the rest. I sincerly hope your friend hasnt put in their statement you tried or were going to try and "seek them out"

If so your finished.

That is piffle. It has already been established that the whole saga happened

• outside of any venue booked by the employer
• outside of works time
• at venues which were fully accessible to the public.

Maybeanotherday

This is exactly why I avoid work do's Much rather hang out with friends!
I hope the OP is feeling a little bit better today, can't offer much of a lifeline as most of these guys seem to have offered opnions on your situation however I can offer help with the Citalopram....
If you drink with Citalopram you may become drowsey and your hangover can be a million times heavier HOWEVER it is dependant on how much you drink and how long you have been taking Citalopram
Good Luck!

Anihilator

DVardysShadow wrote: »

That is piffle. It has already been established that the whole saga happened

• outside of any venue booked by the employer
• outside of works time
• at venues which were fully accessible to the public.

The OP who is on the record as going looking for the manager ran into the manager and the rest of the staff at an organised work night out though.

OP you are finished because that comment fully justifies that you went looking for trouble.