Status whilst suspended pending a disciplinary hearing

HONEYMONSTER

In November last year, my Dad was suspended from work for a disciplinary issue and an inital investigation was set for early december, with a disciplinary meeting for mid december.

In the 3rd week in November they wrote to several clients and suppliers saying that he was being investigated by the police for financial irregularities, in the supplier letters they said the police had frozen the bank account due to this and as such they coud not pay their bill until the account was released by the Police. They also said that this shouldn't concern them as they were now under new Management.

At ths stage the bank account had actually been frozen by a Director due to a dispute amongst the Directors and Dad had not been reported to the police, although he was sometime later and was subsequently released by the police with no further action due to lack of evidence.

My question is, given the fact that he was yet to be questioned by his employers for the investigatory meeting, surely by writing out to supplier/clients in this manner it implies they have already made their mind up, because there was no way he could walk back into his job after that, if found innocent as he was?

A pension advisor rang to speak to him a couple of days after he was suspened (last week in Nov) and they told him Dad was suspended and was being investigated by the police but they didn't even complain to the police until 7th December.

I know this makes my Dad sound bad but he was proven by the Police not to be doing anything untowards.

Dad also took a tape recorder in for the initial investigatory meeting and naively agreed to leave it to let them do a transcript for both sides. When he got the tape back but no transcript, they had deleted 50% of everything he had said, leaving parts to be taken totally out of context - however having just got some documentation from them, it appears they got the full transcript so obviously it was OK when they listened to it! My Dad disputes some of their transcript but can't prove it.

Finally his ex employers have gone into his private email account after his departure, without his permission or knowledge and have downloaded some of his emails dated 3 months after he was dismissed. The bright spark uses the same password on all his accounts and once they saw his new email account, they obviously decided to take advantage. Can I get the tribunal to discount this?

We are going to an employment Tribunal but can 't afford a solicitor. Any words of wisdom?

woody01

I know this makes my Dad sound bad but he was proven by the Police not to be doing anything untowards.

He wasn't proven not guilty by anyone.
He was released through lack of evidence......this does not prove lack of guilt.

Uncertain

woody01 wrote: »

He wasn't proven not guilty by anyone.
He was released through lack of evidence......this does not prove lack of guilt.

Typically unhelpful post by woody01!

He is however correct (up to a point) on this but there are quite a few other aspects here.

It is perfectly possible, under some circumstances, to take civil action (including employment dismissals etc) when there is not enough evidence for a criminal charge. This can even happen if somebody is charged and found not guilty as the burden of proof is much lower in a civil case. A good example (in the USA) was O J Simpson. Found not guilty of murder but successfully sued by the family of the deceased.

From what you say the firm may itself have acted in a criminal way by accessing his personal email (misuse of computers) and could in theory at least face charges.

Also, if they made a public statement that was not true this is libellous.

It may be you can use these two points as a lever to help boker a settlement.

You have presumably checked your house insurance to see if you have legal cover (many policies include this and often people don't realise).

1984ReturnsForReal_2

He needs a proper solicitor

Premier_2

Sounds like they are all as bad as each other and probably better off going their separate ways.

Your dad must have done something wrong, or at least highly suspect, for the police to even investigate. There's no smoke without fire.

The company clearly can't be trusted telling lies about their bank account. A bank account can only be frozen by the order of a court; the police have no powers to freeze any ones bank account. (it seems it wasn't frozen by anyone, just a director prevented it from being used until whatever happened had been cleared up)

How did the employer get access to your dad's personal email account?
Or do you mean his the email account he used in the course of his employment and provided by the employer? If so, the company probably can access it legitimately.

woody01

Typically unhelpful post by woody01!

He is however correct (up to a point) on this but there are quite a few other aspects here.

You haven't chelped up for a while. I was beginning to think you were dead.

Anyway, it wasn't unhelpful, because the point being made by the OP, was that the ex-employers had no rights to investigate as her father was deemed not guilty, when in fact, he was let off through lack of evidence. It's a different thing altogether.
As you say, just because the police couldn't gather enough evidence, it can still go to a civil court and action taken.

Also, this company seemes to be going to extraordinary lengths in order to gain evidence to prove guilt. They must be sure something has been done illegally or they would let it go.

terra_ferma

There is a very long thread from someone who was dismissed following an 'investigation'. ET found that the employer had not investigated the matter properly and that the person was 'automatically unfairly dismissed'.
However as they had been accused (amongst other things) of stealing money, they did not get any compensation.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1491289

Basically if ET thinks that the employee would have still been dismissed even if the company had followed the correct procedure they will not give compensation.

I would say ET may decide the company were right to dismiss your dad (if this is what happened, as it's not clear if he resigned instead, in which case it would be even harder to prove constructive dismissal).
Being investigated by the police, although with lack of evidence, may be enough. But your solicitor will be able to advise you.

DVardysShadow

Premier wrote: »

...

Your dad must have done something wrong, or at least highly suspect, for the police to even investigate. There's no smoke without fire.

That comment is bang out of order - I thought better of you than this sort of ignorance.

If the police investigated, it means that a serious accusation was made. And that is about it.

Judas

The fact you don't seem to be defending him on the grounds of innocence and instead technicalities would say a lot to me. Furthermore how do you know what the police had or had not done?
They would not necessarily disclose this to the suspect.

DVardysShadow

Judas wrote: »

The fact you don't seem to be defending him on the grounds of innocence and instead technicalities would say a lot to me. Furthermore how do you know what the police had or had not done?
They would not necessarily disclose this to the suspect.

Sometimes it is not wise to post your defence on a public forum.

terra_ferma

Honey, don't take it personally, this forum is meant to be a friendly, welcoming place where people exchange information and tips.
But some people just don't get it, I'm afraid....