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

DirectDebacle

The Op asked what to make of the message from HR. Below is my response to the OP.

The Op needs to decide whether it would be wise for him to attend the meeting on Monday. I think I gave good advice but it may well not be the best advice.

If it were me then I would want to know precisely what the discipline meeting was to be about. It was adjourned for the particular reason of further enquiries of witnesses to be made. It is not clear if those enquiries have been made or if there is any new evidence to 'fill in the holes'.

As I understand it the OP is entitled to see all the evidence prior to a discipline and HR should have informed the OP whether there was further evidence prior to setting the date for the meeting.

HR seem to be making the rules up as they go along and I would not trust them one bit.

If there is no further evidence then the Discipline Panel have seen all the evidence and should be making their decision on that basis. The letter rupee99 suggested may be appropriate if there is no new evidence.

I am out of my depth on HR/Employment law procedures.
The OP needs to know would it be best to go to the meeting 'blind' or wait until he knew what the agenda is.

I don't know what to make of it either. You posted that it had been adjourned to fill in the holes. I was expecting you to be given the result of those enquiries in the form of further statements from the witnesses. As none seem to have been taken then the only evidence they can use re the threatening/abusive behaviour is that contained in the existing statements. Any discussion outside of these statements is therefore unwarranted and unfair. On the face of it they haven't been able to fill in the holes.

I would immediately email them back. Point out that the matter was adjourned for further enquiries to be made. Tell them you require to be informed of what those enquiries revealed and if they intend to discuss any matters not contained within the existing statements. I would tell them you do not intend to attend any further meetings until you know precisely what is going to be discussed and what new evidence, if any, they intend to produce.

I am not sure if any of the above is the right course of action as I am not familiar with HR procedures/discipline meetings. I would suggest you post the letter or paraphrase it on the thread. You are bound to receive some good responses as to which way to play it. To me it appears to have been adjourned for no good reason. If they were unsure of your behaviour at the previous meeting (and would therefore not be able to find you in breach) what has changed. If nothing then they should just find it unproved and re-instate you.

Also require them to confirm that the the only outstanding matter is the behaviour aspect and that the drugs allegation has been disposed with. If you haven't got that in writing then you must have it.

ariarnia

I would suggest a compromise, go to the meeting, and if the bring out any new evidence, get a copy, don't respond to it and leave when they've finished presenting their case saying you need time to consider the evidence and prepare your response for it.

rupee99

If they have new evidence the OP is entitled to see it before responding to it. If they do not they are obliged to discontinue the matter.

It is arguable that the matter should have been dropped at the first meeting on the following grounds

1 They discontinued the "drugs matter"

2 The unacceptable behaviour stemmed from being unjustly and publicly accussed of committing a criminal offence without any reasonable grounds of suspicion.

3 If the "charge" was to be altered to sustained unacceptable behaviour that becomes an entirely new matter and the process has to be started from the beginning and any new meeting is not an adjournment of the first and has to be treated as if it was the first hearing of the new case. Therefore the OP is entitled to receive all documentation and evidence as he was for the meeting of 2 February.

4 The meeting Monday has no standing and is likely to be disregarded as a legitimate Disciplinary hearing should this matter ever get to a Employment Tribunal.

IMO the OP should attend and make these points but not co-operate further until an acceptable adjournment for them to get the correct proocedure in place is agreed.

DirectDebacle

rupee99 wrote: »

If they have new evidence the OP is entitled to see it before responding to it. If they do not they are obliged to discontinue the matter......... IMO the OP should attend and make these points but not co-operate further until an acceptable adjournment for them to get the correct proocedure in place is agreed.

Excellent suggestion.

robredz

"Originally Posted by rupee99
If they have new evidence the OP is entitled to see it before responding to it. If they do not they are obliged to discontinue the matter......... IMO the OP should attend and make these points but not co-operate further until an acceptable adjournment for them to get the correct proocedure in place is agreed."

They are out of their depth and floundering looking for a way to justify their action against OP. They are obviously going outside good practice, and should drop the whole matter pdq, otherwise they are likely on the trapdoor at a tribunal, with the lever ready to be pulled imho.

DVardysShadow

FWIW, I would reckon that u264047's HR has been reading this for a little while now.

I think they are desperately embarrassed that they have to deal with this, hence I did suggest that OP would be backed into a corner and given an offer to go. That didn't happen, but the hand on the shoulder from HR person suggests some intent to control the situation away from a dismissal and an otherwise inevitable path to a tribunal - but quite how? Given how tall the OP is, the hand on the shoulder is quite a contrived gesture, IMO

I suspect it is a 2 prong approach now. Firstly to diminish the disciplinary to something which won't go near a tribunal. Secondly, if that fails, to end up with some sort of compromise where the OP leaves. I think HR have probably made a faily solid case not to proceed with the drugs allegation and have secured internal agreement to drop it. This means that they still have to deal with the 'threatening behaviour' allegation.

Now, HR are I think not trying to help OP, they are just trying to minimize the consequences for the business - a tribunal loss looms, together with adverse publicity which may deter new recruits, plus internally for their reputation with current staff they would rather not get into the position of a tribunal.

The danger for the OP now is not so much dismissal as consequences short of dismissal. This may be the prospect that HR are holding out to the Sales bloke in putting aside the drugs allegation. Stripped of the initial confrontation where the sales bloke made his stupid 'drugs' allegation, of course, it does not look so good for OP, but in context, there is no genuine case against OP any more. OP should make sure that all of the 'drugs' allegation material is kept on the table for dealing with the 'threatening behaviour' allegation - if necessary placing the company's own evidence from the first hearing back on the table.

A lot now comes down to how much clout the Sales bloke has. Obviously to anyone who knows about this, he is a laughing stock, but to the employer, his value may be who he knows. So the question may boil down to whether sales bloke can demand OP is removed and to whether employer can make sales bloke live down the humiliation of having OP return, record unblemished. If the latter happens, of course sales bloke could be kept quiet with a pay rise - which will only reinforce his behaviour and attitudes and his potential to embarrass the employer.

u264047

Rupee, I love your suggestion.. Thank you very much.

DVardysShadow, I really like your post. Although I think the pat on the shoulder was simply a friendly gesture, this manager told me during the Disciplinary that he likes me, and when the move to China was in the pipeline, he said "I really don't want to lose you... but I understand"

I really would love to have the opportunity to work for my company again, I'd derive a huge amount of satisfaction from seeing the look on the sales managers face. I don't see how sacking me would be fair, given what evidence they have, but I guess if I wanted fair I've picked the wrong species.

Alternatively, I would accept a nice lump sum (preferably tax free) and a glowing reference, but I think the day they offer me that i'll be watching the pigs flapping their brand new wings.

Nevertheless.... I can be bought.

ali-t

lol @ u264047 - is your last post incase HR are reading this thread?

[Deleted User]

Never thought of that. What if the companies HR department are reading this?

robredz

[quote=[Deleted User];29682165]Never thought of that. What if the companies HR department are reading this?[/QUOTE]

Most likely realising that they need a credible exit strategy, that involves serious damage limitation (to themselves) ....like yesterday.