Colleague issue

Nicki

MrRedundant wrote: »

Wonder if you would think the same if it was you on suspension or if it turns out to be all malicous on behalf of the accuser.

Until an investigation has any sort of corroboration either they both should be at work or they should both not be. The fact is people are letting the type of allegation sway them here into removing all of the accused's rights to a fair and proper process.

We have got into a side issue about asking someone to take the leave and I disagree with the majority but I can't believe people don't think its unfair that he has been branded as guilty until proven innocent and is being discussed in the office with anyone before any sort of investigation has taken place.

If the allegation was made maliciously and proven to be false, then the accuser would be guilty of gross misconduct, and would almost certainly themselves be dismissed.

It is not appropriate to suspend the accuser irrespective of the nature of the allegation pending investigation, and I think it is you who are letting the nature of the allegation cloud your opinion. If you saw a colleague steal something from the stockroom and reported that would you expect to be suspended pending proof that it was your colleague who had taken the missing items?

A serious offence has been alleged and it is clearly appropriate that the suspected employee should be suspended pending the investigation. There is no reason at all why the reporter should also be suspended as no one has alleged any wrongdoing on her part.

SandC

MrRedundant wrote: »

No I would both ask yo take annual leave or unpaid leave voluntary until it was resolved - Neither would be suspension they would be leave.

If they didnt both agree, Both would be suspended.

I would be very concerned about treating him any differently to her at this stage whilst the allegations are just that.

If the allegations where to be later disproven he would have a rock solid grievance against the organisation and the OP.

Suspension may be billed as neutruel but in reality it isnt and once someone is suspended very few return to work unaffected.

What exactly would you do if you go and suspend the alleged flasher and it later transpires its all a silly crush on him and malicous behaviour yet you treated him as guilty - this does happen.

HR need to remain independent until the investigation is undertaken and conclusions drawn and action entered into.

My personal decision right now would be to ask both parties to take annual leave until after the new year and have the investigation completed by the time they where due to return to work and aim to commence any discliplinary behaviours the week staff are due back. At that point the investigation would be near complete and the likiehood of discliplinary action known thus making suspension far more justified for just one party.

If serious allegations are made, employers have little they can do but suspend the accused. This is done on full pay pending investigation for precisely the reason that it could all be a load of bunkum. But if someone has made up things for spiteful reasons it's usually found out pretty quickly. An employee doesn't have any real recourse so long as proper procedures are taken.

You are, of course, correct in that things are rarely the same again if someone has been suspended for nothing, but such is life. People who take employers to tribunals (and win) are still looked upon by some as trouble makers, and many employers skirt around employment law in many different ways.

In my opinion, the employer has done absolutely the right thing here. I suspect 9/10 the one with the allegation made against them will slip up somewhere in the statements and investigations anyway.

wuckfit

MrRedundant wrote: »

So just to clarify all the contributers to this thread think its entirely reasonable for someone to be suspended on the word of a colleague with no corroboration and that colleague to remain in post and tell people about it.

Wonder if you would think the same if it was you on suspension or if it turns out to be all malicous on behalf of the accuser.

Until an investigation has any sort of corroboration either they both should be at work or they should both not be. The fact is people are letting the type of allegation sway them here into removing all of the accused's rights to a fair and proper process.

We have got into a side issue about asking someone to take the leave and I disagree with the majority but I can't believe people don't think its unfair that he has been branded as guilty until proven innocent and is being discussed in the office with anyone before any sort of investigation has taken place.

I can't understand how you come to this conclusion. the accused is still being paid as normal, despite not being in work.
They still have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union rep for any disciplinary meeting. that is the fair and proper process.

The OP has already said that she has been asked to keep it confidential, so I can't see what the problem is. It is normal procedure to suspend employees if an allegation is made against them to prevent attempts to cover up any misdeeds or prevent any contact with other staff in order for them to concoct alibis.

The chances of a malicious false allegation are much less than a genuine one.

hippygran

The suspension of the person accused in a case of potential Gross Misconduct matters, is standard practice, and would apply even if it didn't involve sexual harassment, as long as the employer has 'reasonable grounds' to believe the offence has been committed.

The 'reasonable grounds' in this case would not be the word of just one person, but the e-mails as well (and there is also the possibility that he has also implicated himself).

It is highly unlikely that the manager, following advice from HR, has just walked up to him and suspended him, without any conversation taking place. The usual format would be telling him the allegations, allowing him chance to put his side of things, and normally a record would have been made.

Presumably if he had denied the whole thing, (difficult in the light of the existence of the e-mails), HR would have consulted again prior to suspension.

The company have acted appropriately and within current HR guide-lines, providing he is being paid.

He will have been suspended 'pending investigation', and this can be done for relatively small misdemeanors, although is generally reserved for more serious occasions.

At this stage in proceedings, it is not a 'punishment', but simply a way of the employers being able to investigate the alleged behaviour.

If the complaint is not up-held, the complainer would then be subject to disciplinary action.

The company has a legal obligation to protect staff, and if they didn't suspend, and further problems occurred during the investigation they would be be subject to possible litigation as a result.

For the same reason they cant suspend the complainer, because if that were the case, no-one would feel able to complain about anyone. After all, if one employee was stealing, no one would report it, if they thought they were going to be suspended, would they?

Gwen has been told to keep her mouth shut, and she is an intelligent girl, so I think she will. She has nothing to gain by blabbing and gossiping about this, as this would put the outcome in jeopardy, and would seriously bring in to question any decision made at the end of the disciplinary process.

By saying that BOTH should be suspended, you are effectively saying that if you witnessed a crime, you would expect to be treated exactly the same as the criminal! If that were the case, believe me, the police would have even more problems getting people to be witnesses than they do now!

My apologies for my incorrect post yesterday about CRB checks. Of course, MOST places cant and don't check, but at least being on the sex offenders register means my assailant will not be able to work with more vulnerable people than me, AND he will have to explain away a rather large gap in his employment history, AND whilst he is on the register he will have to LIE to most employers, also running the risk of being found out, and faces charges for this.

He is on the register for 7 years, and I expect that at the end of this time, providing he hasn't re-offended, he will then be taken off it.

I am all in favour of rehabilitation of offenders, by the way, I just think really special care needs to be taken in the case of sexual offenders, which is why we have the sex offenders register. If, after 7 years he has grown up, and is no longer a problem, then that will be fine by me!

Savvy_Sue

MrRedundant wrote: »

I would start by asking them both to take annual leave/unpaid leave. If they didnt agree to this I would suspend both.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Suspend the OP unpaid? You are off your rocker mate.

my sentiments exactly!

MrRedundant wrote: »

but the police would have to prove that his exposure wasnt accidental. Without a confession I think they would struggle.

:rotfl: now, I'm guessing you're a man, which I'm not. However I have consulted both my DH and one of my sons, and they are both of the opinion that it would be very difficult to accidentally expose yourself while sitting at a desk. DS said 'assuming your clothes fit properly', which is a fair point, but in a desk job you don't usually get complete scruff pots so I think we can discount the possibility of oversized clothes falling down. and I checked: if your trouser zip is broken, you keep your little friend INSIDE your underwear.

MrRedundant wrote: »

So just to clarify all the contributers to this thread think its entirely reasonable for someone to be suspended on the word of a colleague with no corroboration and that colleague to remain in post and tell people about it.

no, I think the OP should have been immediately asked who she had already spoken to within the office and then advised not to say any more to anyone, on pain of suspension, and the same said to anyone she had spoken to. and it doesn't sound as if that was done, and I was a bit concerned that she said someone else had told her this chap had done something inappropriate.

but she has now been told not to talk about it, and it's possible that the comment was made without any realisation that the OP had made a complaint. we all know of men who seem to keep their brains in their pants, who think a lady's face is nearly a foot lower than it actually is, who stand too close, who touch where no touch is appropriate - and in the office, we ladies know who they are!

FatVonD

I'm not excusing him, the man is clearly a slime ball but I don't think you've done yourself any favours by not setting any boundaries along the way re the emails, etc.

If he does it again point and say 'Oh, look at this everyone, it looks like a penis only smaller!'

ceridwen

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Unpaid suspension is unpaid suspension. "Go unpaid or lose your annual leave or else you'll be suspended unpaid" is unpaid suspension. The OP will lose her summer holiday over making a complaint.

This is not acceptable. I take your point that there is a small possibility that a woman could take such a complaint as a cheap way to destroy a man. But at the same time, you must recognise that an investigation of something like this could go on for 6 weeks easily. To make a complainant go that amount of time unpaid is totally unacceptable - it would deter about 999 out of 1000 complainants. Although I would be one of the first to say that nayone accused should be paid on suspension while the matter is investigated.

I would find it totally unacceptable to even think of telling a complainant in these circumstances to even take paid leave whilst this is being investigated. Even that would constitute a "penalty" of sorts for the "innocent party" (ie Gwen in this case) - as it would mean taking leave at a time not of her choosing.

I take it as read that the flasher is being paid whilst on suspension - rather than unpaid or forced into taking annual leave. So - he's probably actually got himself a few weeks extra leave in effect - so he won't be losing out. If he's worrying whilst in that position - then he only has himself to blame and hopefully it might deter him from trying anything with any other woman in future.

I dont know what standard practice is with firms normally in these circumstances (hopefully we've got an experienced Union Rep who might be able to tell us) - but I cannot imagine it would be in anyone's interests to do anything whatsoever that could be deemed as "penalising" the "innocent party". If an "innocent party" in cases like this felt they might suffer in any way from bringing this to management attention - then that would mean some people in the "innocent party" situation would ensure that THEY personally meted out a bit of "rough justice" in order to ensure that justice was done/but they couldnt suffer personally from having dealt with the matter.

I dont imagine anyone - either management or Police (if it comes to it) would want to take the risk of an "innocent party" taking matters into their own hands. Thus - I cant see them doing anything hurtful in any way to "innocent party".

whitewing

It is fair to suspend the flasher pending investigation of a serious allegation. He then has the knowledge that, under different circumstances, were he to make a complaint about anyone else in the organisation then his complaint would be taken seriously too.

rebeccak

Originally Posted by MrRedundant
Thirdly - Employment law has a different burden from criminal law. The police would investigate but its unlikely to go further.

SueC wrote: »

I don't understand this. If the guy had exposed himself in the park / on a bus / walking down the street / in the pub / anywhere else, it would clearly be a police matter. Are you saying that they are not interested because the (alleged) offence happened in the workplace and so is covered by employment law not criminal law?

By an extension of that, is it also okay for me to steal from / assault / be abusive towards / blackmail, my colleagues safe in the knowledge that the law of the land won't care and I may lose my job but I won't be prosecuted?

Sounds a bit off to me.

Both criminal law and employment law apply to incidents in the workplace but the burden of proof is different. Employment law looks at 'the balance of probabilities' whereas in criminal law, it has to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused is guilty.

Take an incident where someone has allegedly stolen something from the workplace. After a full investigation, the evidence suggests that it is very likely that the accused employee did steal from the employer but there is some degree of doubt and it can't be fully proved that they did so. Under employment law, this is sufficient to sack them because on the balance of probabilities they probably did commit the offence. However, under criminal law, it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt and the employee would be unlikely to get a criminal conviction.

yvonne13_2

OP I am sorry you are going through this at this time of year but hopefully this matter will be resolved quickley.

Just a thought thou why or how did the other woman know to come and tell you what happened?

Also I hope you remain strong as you will find out who people really are when all of a sudden people don't want to be involved as they would rather protect there job instead of doing the right thing.

Perhaps this is a lesson to us all, once something becomes a little out of order nip it in the bud. Oh and as for the emails it would only reach to two as I would have blind copied HR or my boss in telling him I find the emails unacceptable and remind him of the work place code of conduct and if he continutes to misuse the companys email account for anything other than work related issues he would be reported.