Suspended - Help!!

UrsulasDad

Hi,

I'm posting on behalf of a relative who I feel is the victim of an unjust suspension from work. She has a disciplinary meetng next week which could result in her dismissal.

She has worked for a retail firm for over 11 years and has worked her way up to managing her own store. Recently, while she was not on duty, her store was burgled where £20,000 worth of goods and cash were taken in addition to all the CCTV footage on computer hard disks.

The staff at the store claim that everything was locked up at 22:00 and the alarm was put on correctly, however the security firm who monitor the alarm system recieved a "Fail to Close" signal at approximately 22:10. Basically this means that the alarm had not been primed correctly. The security firm then made three calls to the store at 22:30, with no answer. At 22:42, they called my relative on her phone but she was asleep and didn't hear the call. They called again 2 hours later with the same result as she was still asleep.

The next day at 7.30am on arriving at the store she discovered and reported the burglary to the police and the Loss Prevention Manager (LPM).

When the LPM spoke to the security firm, they informed that only one key holder was registered for the store (my relative). The person who had been responsible for locking up the store had been locking up for the past six months, but had not been formally registered as a keyholder. A minimum of three people should be registered and trained as keyholders. This directive was given three weeks before the break in.

She's also being accused of not filling in and submitting a security checklist (no deadline for submission given) and failing to communicate an email sent (three days prior to the break in) with regard to checking the alarm sensors on the store doors.

To me, having read the evidence it seems like she is guilty of no more than a few procedural oversights which can handily make her a scapegoat for this incident. Perhaps some disciplinary action is required, but I don't think that dismissal is fair.

Incidentally, the police had initially suspected an inside job and had arrested the person who had locked up the store but later released them without charge. I also find it odd the fact that the four people working at the store on that night had their statements taken over a week later. Each statement is virtually identical.

Is there anyone in this field who can give any pointers as to how she should handle her disciplinary case?

Thanks in advance.:)

SarEl

It isn't easy because this isn't straightforward. But to correct your first statement - there is no such thing as an "unjust suspension". Suspension is, in law, a neutral act that neither supposes guilt nor innocence. So the first tip is to focus on what matters - the disciplinary allegations - and not the suspension.

In any disciplinary the key to disputing an employers case is evidence. So if she received an e-mail, for example, and was responsible for acting on it, then she needs to show that she did, or that she has a reason for not doing so (and preferably told them that at the time). So she needs to go through every piece of evidence very carefully to pick up on any factual errors, and where possible show evidence that the facts are incorrect. If she needs to access any information or witnesses she should be given the opportunity (and time) to do so, although this may be supervised access to ensure that she doesn't tamper with anything or intimidate witnesses. She is allowed to ask for a postponement of the hearing if this cannot be done in time. Any such requests - in fact any communication - should be in writing stating reasons where necessary. Never rely on telephone conversations.

The employer will presumably be seeking to demonstrate that she was responsible, either solely or with others, for correct use of the security procedures. If she was not responsible, her defence must focus on this too. She needs to show who was responsible. If others have responsibility she should also try to find out whether they are facing disciplinaries too (although the employer is unlikely to tell her). Employment law works somewhat differently from other kinds of law, and if there is clear responsibility for aspects of this situation that lie with others, it would be inappropriate for the employer to take action against only one person. Mind, this is not to say that the outcome must be the same for everyone, but they cannot take action against just one.

I assume that she will be unrepresented. In which case she needs to carefully prepare questions and points in advance, almost to the point of having a script if she must. This will ensure that she doesn't forget anything important. It also helps to deflect the inevitable nerves and puts something in your hands to steady them.

In terms of the actual allegations, this is the hardest part to advise on because I have only a sketchy idea of what the employer is arguing and the workplace context. The devil is always in the detail, and I am afraid that other than saying that the allegations would probably fall under the province of serious or gross misconduct, it rather hard to know what to make of them. Obviously, as I said, the best thing to make of them is incorrect - but I suspect that it may not be that simple or straight forward.

The other thing to watch for is process. Make sure that they follow the letter of their policy and that it conforms to ACAS guidance. Hopeless cases on an evidentiary basis can be clear winners if an employer screws up the process and makes mistakes.

I hope that helps a bit - come back if any of it isn't clear or you want some specific questions answered

Kez1983

I would also personally also go with this being an inside job. They took the cctv hard disks? All break ins I have dealt with in my many years in retail (apart from the couple of proven inside jobs!) have been straight in take whatever it was they wanted cash/goods and out again.

But to the suspension/discip:

UrsulasDad wrote: »

Hi,


The staff at the store claim that everything was locked up at 22:00 and the alarm was put on correctly, however the security firm who monitor the alarm system recieved a "Fail to Close" signal at approximately 22:10. Basically this means that the alarm had not been primed correctly. The security firm then made three calls to the store at 22:30, with no answer. At 22:42, they called my relative on her phone but she was asleep and didn't hear the call. They called again 2 hours later with the same result as she was still asleep. That seems a long time between the failure to close and calling your relative, and 2 hours between tries? Has there been an activation before? Was the same procedure (ie timings) followed?

When the LPM spoke to the security firm, they informed that only one key holder was registered for the store (my relative). The person who had been responsible for locking up the store had been locking up for the past six months, but had not been formally registered as a keyholder. A minimum of three people should be registered and trained as keyholders. This directive was given three weeks before the break in. Does the store have a procedure relating to the control of keys? Even though the 3 keyholder rule was given 3 weeks before break in, what has previously been written down regarding keys? Usual practice is that it is the store managers responsibility to update keyholder lists. 6 months of the keys being used without officially reporting it seems a very long time to me.

She's also being accused of not filling in and submitting a security checklist (no deadline for submission given) and failing to communicate an email sent (three days prior to the break in) with regard to checking the alarm sensors on the store doors. Dont take this one the wrong way, but how long should it take for such an important document as a security checklist to be completed? As a retailler I would be rather annoyed that this was not prioritised, but on your relatives part they could use the lack of deadline in defence.

Had they been in contact with the person closing the store since the email was received? If so i am not sure what reason could be given regarding not communicating it.

To me, having read the evidence it seems like she is guilty of no more than a few procedural oversights which can handily make her a scapegoat for this incident. Perhaps some disciplinary action is required, but I don't think that dismissal is fair. Unfortunately those procedural oversights have resulted in a £20,000 loss to the company. Personally I do think your relative needs to be prepared that dismissal is the likely option here.

I am assuming the investigation has already taken place, as you say the discip is next week. My general advice would be to go in thoroughly prepared. Look through the investigation and try to think like the person carrying it out.

What questions will they ask? Have answers ready in defence. Can they obtain copies of handbook/other procedures in advance to clarify security/keyholder policies?

Oh and dont make it an admission of guilt but Apologise!!! It really annoys me when someone admits they have done something wrong, but dont apologise!

Hope thats of some help.

UrsulasDad

Hi,

thanks for your replies. Very useful .

It isn't easy because this isn't straightforward. But to correct your first statement - there is no such thing as an "unjust suspension". Suspension is, in law, a neutral act that neither supposes guilt nor innocence. So the first tip is to focus on what matters - the disciplinary allegations - and not the suspension

Maybe the wrong turn of phrase here. I'm probably being a little emotive.

The employer will presumably be seeking to demonstrate that she was responsible, either solely or with others, for correct use of the security procedures. If she was not responsible, her defence must focus on this too. She needs to show who was responsible. If others have responsibility she should also try to find out whether they are facing disciplinaries too (although the employer is unlikely to tell her). Employment law works somewhat differently from other kinds of law, and if there is clear responsibility for aspects of this situation that lie with others, it would be inappropriate for the employer to take action against only one person. Mind, this is not to say that the outcome must be the same for everyone, but they cannot take action against just one.

Do you think it would be possible to try to discredit the evidence given by the employees. The witness statements given by the staff at the store were given a full nine days adter the incident. Not wanting to suggest that it was an inside job (presumably the police do not have enough evidence, so this is wouldn't be admissable) but if there was any impropriety on the staff's part then nine days is a good length of time for them to 'get their stories straight'. Each statement is virtually identical.

I assume that she will be unrepresented. In which case she needs to carefully prepare questions and points in advance, almost to the point of having a script if she must. This will ensure that she doesn't forget anything important. It also helps to deflect the inevitable nerves and puts something in your hands to steady them.

She will actually be represented by a union rep, but I think it would be a good idea to have a pre prepared statement to read out anyhow. She feels the union haven't been particularly helpful so far. I'm not sure though if this is bourne out by her having a generally defeatist attitude to the case.

I would also personally also go with this being an inside job. They took the cctv hard disks? All break ins I have dealt with in my many years in retail (apart from the couple of proven inside jobs!) have been straight in take whatever it was they wanted cash/goods and out again.

Yes, it looks that way but unfortunately there is no evidence to back this up

Oh and dont make it an admission of guilt but Apologise!!! It really annoys me when someone admits they have done something wrong, but dont apologise!

Good advice, thanks.

That seems a long time between the failure to close and calling your relative, and 2 hours between tries? Has there been an activation before? Was the same procedure (ie timings) followed?

This is a question I'll try to find the answers to.

Does the store have a procedure relating to the control of keys? Even though the 3 keyholder rule was given 3 weeks before break in, what has previously been written down regarding keys? Usual practice is that it is the store managers responsibility to update keyholder lists. 6 months of the keys being used without officially reporting it seems a very long time to me.

This is where things become a little unclear. Her immediate line manager made a decision back in January that official keyholders were no longer a requirement and that the keyholders would now be store managers, duty managers and supervisors (in that order of priority). Due to a lack of staff and flexibility of those already employed at the store, this was never able to be implemented. This then left a staff member as the keyholder on the night in question.

Dont take this one the wrong way, but how long should it take for such an important document as a security checklist to be completed? As a retailler I would be rather annoyed that this was not prioritised, but on your relatives part they could use the lack of deadline in defence. Had they been in contact with the person closing the store since the email was received? If so i am not sure what reason could be given regarding not communicating it.

Not taken the wrong way at all. Although this is something that should have been done, this checklist was handed out at a manager's meeting three weeks prior but no deadline was given for it. On the day of the burglary my relative was told that the deadline for it was that day.

Unfortunately those procedural oversights have resulted in a £20,000 loss to the company. Personally I do think your relative needs to be prepared that dismissal is the likely option here.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look too good and as I alluded to earlier, I think she has all but resigned herself to getting the bullet on this one, however I don't think she should go down without a fight as the case (although heavily weighted against her) doesn't seem to be completely cut and dried. She has a completely unblemished 11 year record and hopefully this should count for something.

Reggie_Rebel

UrsulasDad wrote: »

When the LPM spoke to the security firm, they informed that only one key holder was registered for the store (my relative). The person who had been responsible for locking up the store had been locking up for the past six months, but had not been formally registered as a keyholder. A minimum of three people should be registered and trained as keyholders. This directive was given three weeks before the break in.

She's also being accused of not filling in and submitting a security checklist (no deadline for submission given) and failing to communicate an email sent (three days prior to the break in) with regard to checking the alarm sensors on the store doors.

You could make a case that these two oversights together add up to Gross Misconduct. If she's not happy with her Union Rep, ask for another one, but of she has a defeatist attitude she's not likely to get much help

Judas

She needs to get specialist advice and follow it.
What you have described is pretty serious breaches and lapses of responsibility and could quite easily amount to gross misconduct.

Whatever she does please do not argue that it isnt because head office didnt put a timeline on memo's etc. This will almost certainly make her look worse if HO think they need to tell her a timescale to issue important security memo's.

woody01

To me, having read the evidence it seems like she is guilty of no more than a few procedural oversights which can handily make her a scapegoat for this incident. Perhaps some disciplinary action is required, but I don't think that dismissal is fair

1. She was the only 'recognised' key holder, where there should've been 3. The comms for this was issues 3 weeks before the incident.
2. The store was incorrectly locked. Regardless whether she locked it or not, she is the manager and assumes responsibility
3. I assume she is supposed to be contactable 24/7 as she is the MANAGER

She hasn't got a leg to stand on.
With management comes responsibility to not only staff, but premises. She has proved that she is not responsible enough to fulfil her role.

SarEl

It's helpful to get away from the concept of what is or isn't admissable. This is a disciplinary and not a court of law. Even if this went to tribunal, the rules of evidence in a tribunal are somewhat different from those of other courts. So you can introduce anything you want. But from a practical point of view, if you can't evidence it then don't expect that it will go very far.

Whilst I don't have first hand experience of the type of workplace, I would have to agree that this sounds like an inside job. It stretches the bounds of credibility that one the one occasion upon which the door was left unsecured a gang of thieves just happened to come along and check it out. However, rules of criminal evidence are much more stringent and the Police may have their own ideas about how this happened, but evidencing those are a different ball game.

The advice of the other posters with direct experience of similar workplaces is invaluable because they are pointing to weaknesses in her argument which need to be addressed. The facts of this, given that she seems to broadly agree that the allegations are "true" - in that they are not untrue, but she may feel there are extenuating circumstances - tend to indicate that she has little prospect of being cleared entirely. The question in law (and what happens at a disciplinary is only important in terms of testing at law in a tribunal) then becomes whether dismissal is a proportional reaction to the allegations. In all honesty, I believe the answer to that may well be that it is. Certainly, her previous long and good service only counts with the employer, and only if they wish to take it into account. A tribunal cannot consider this at all.

On this basis, it is best to use anything that you can at the disciplinary, because this may be her only real chance.

Don't forget, as I said before, to keep a careful eye on the process (although her union should be doing this too), because an error there may be helpful to any potential case.

Kez1983

UrsulasDad wrote: »

Hi,


This is where things become a little unclear. Her immediate line manager made a decision back in January that official keyholders were no longer a requirement and that the keyholders would now be store managers, duty managers and supervisors (in that order of priority). Due to a lack of staff and flexibility of those already employed at the store, this was never able to be implemented. This then left a staff member as the keyholder on the night in question. QUOTE]

Does she have any written proof of this? And had she had any conversations (or even better emails etc) stating to her line manager that this wasnt possible to happen?

And does she have any concrete issues that meant the security checklist had not been carried out earlier? Management sickness/holidays etc?

Although I am not a fan of union reps (apologies to all useful/helpful reps out there, just personal experience has not been good!) as already said if they are not being helpful then tell them/ask for someone else.

ginnersinner

I think, given that the OPs relative is facing potential dismissal, the best advice to give is to get proper, face-to-face, legal advice. As competent as most of the advice given here is, it cannot properly replace the focus and 'ebb and flow' of a face-to-face conversation with a lawyer who can examine exactly what evidence there is. There has been mention of a union rep - what provision does that union have for representing/defending members in these situations? One thing I will say from my own knowledge (which is next to none!) is that the conduct of any dismissal procedure is almost more important than proving whether or not the employee actually did what they allege amounts to gross misconduct. Any flaws in the procedure would leave the employer open to a potential unlawful dismissal claim.

carlbcfc

Just to weigh in on the union thing. I was dismissed unfairly. After the union telling me I would win in court, I got a letter from their solicitor telling me they did not think I had a chance. I had no choice but to go private as I felt I had a good chance, and the solicitor immediate found errors in procedure which won me the case. I was also told I would have won anyway. I was 1/3 at fault, but my dismissal was too severe for the crime, and I was not treated evenly. Unite the union cost me money.

Point being, seek independent advice if the union brush you off.