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

u264047

DirectDebacle wrote: »

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 is a bit wrong, the office apprentice girl was told I was joking when we had a conversation about needing drugs to like dance music.

I think the Sales Manager truly believes I am a raging cokehead.

DirectDebacle

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?

Seems to me there are now two separate incidents.

One is an allegation of taking drugs at work, albeit not at the usual place of work. This should be examined by H.R.

The second is an allegation of threatening behaviour. This occurred outside of working hours and not at the place of work or place temporarily deemed as such. This is not a matter for H.R. and the manager should have been advised by H.R. either to report it to the police or pursue a civil remedy.

No doubt I will be corrected if wrong. If I am not then H.R. could save face by dismissing the drugs allegation as a genuine (drunken) mistake. The second issue is non of their business as far as disciplinary matters go.

Still leave tension between two employees, at least. This could be released by one of them working in China. Be a nice result.

DirectDebacle

u264047 wrote: »

This is a bit wrong, the office apprentice girl was told I was joking when we had a conversation about needing drugs to like dance music.

I think the Sales Manager truly believes I am a raging cokehead.

My reference was to the original allegation made to you by the sales manager in the toilet. Did you not say that he intimated a few days later in a meeting that this remark was meant in a jocular way?

If I have that right I find it surprising that H.R. have taken it seriously enough to notify you that you are being investigated for alleged drug abuse over a joke.

robredz

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.

It was in a random bar, after a works do had concluded so wouldn't be covered as if it was in work imho.so

rupee99

The "seek them out" comment will not be helpful to the OP, but it is by no means fatal to his case. Hence it would have been better not to volunteer that information, but once it had been it is rather like tootpaste, once it is out it is impossible to get back into the tube (a quotation from Lord Denning at a lecture I attended nearly 40 years ago)

robredz

u264047 wrote: »

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

If it can be shown the intention was to correct a misapprehension then it would be ok, so long as the inference that you were looking for them to do them harm, could be allayed imho. If you can show it is all outside work, then the Anihilators opinion is flushed down the pan.

DirectDebacle

rupee99 wrote: »

The "seek them out" comment will not be helpful to the OP, but it is by no means fatal to his case. Hence it would have been better not to volunteer that information, but once it had been it is rather like tootpaste, once it is out it is impossible to get back into the tube (a quotation from Lord Denning at a lecture I attended nearly 40 years ago)

Exactly. If 'seek them out' has not been qualified in the statement then you could have been seeking then out to buy them a drink and put the matter behind you or any other non agressive or non confrontational reason.

robredz

rupee99 wrote: »

The "seek them out" comment will not be helpful to the OP, but it is by no means fatal to his case. Hence it would have been better not to volunteer that information, but once it had been it is rather like tootpaste, once it is out it is impossible to get back into the tube (a quotation from Lord Denning at a lecture I attended nearly 40 years ago)

Off the record, I think the great Lord Denning would have castigated HR and the managerfor a waste of time and effort in investigating tittle tattle, and the managers own agenda.

He must be spinning in his grave at curent legal developments.

u264047

DirectDebacle wrote: »

My reference was to the original allegation made to you by the sales manager in the toilet. Did you not say that he intimated a few days later in a meeting that this remark was meant in a jocular way?

If I have that right I find it surprising that H.R. have taken it seriously enough to notify you that you are being investigated for alleged drug abuse over a joke.

No, he said in a later meeting that he "possibly" made the public declaration of not drinking with a smack head and insisting everyone departed.

viktory

u264047 wrote: »

Thanks guys, but i'm not going in today. Can't do it. They still didn't reply to my email that I sent last friday advising them of this....

Wonder what the hold up is?

I can understand you are feeling stressed, but the stress won't just go away. You need to face up to this situation and get it dealt it. Deferring for two weeks is not going to improve things - resolution is what is needed here.