Is there a legal term for this? also I need help for an appeal hearing

daisycha

(sorry but it’s a long one)

I have edited the post as requested.

New Background Note: I was given a written warning for accidentally leaving some libellous statements on a photocopier which related to a previous investigation about me. The previous investigation resulted in me not having a case to answer as the respondent ( my then Manager) and her witnesses put a grievance against me was an act of malicious actions: I think it must be noted that I only left some of the statements on a photocopier my name had been redacted by me and most of the other names had also been redacted so it was hard to make head of tail of the statements.

Is there a Legal Term for this? In a nut shell what I wanted to know is, if my employers had followed their own guidance, I would not have gone under formal investigation and as a consequence of their incorrect actions I was given libellous statements which made was a detriment to my health and safety. In addition, I would not have had to take care of libellous confidential documents about myself. Which I accidentally left some of the statements on a photocopier. As my employers failed to followed their own procedures of meditation prior formal investigation they would not have been a need to do a formal investigation as the compliant made a vexation complaint with her staff (friends) and I would not have had any statements. It might be worth noting that one of the recommendation of the first investigation which I did not have to answer the CO said that everyone involved should do group meditation as there were several people have undermined team spirit. Is it fair that I’m been given a warning, bearing in mind my employers did not follow their own policy in the first investigation nor did they follow procedures in this case . Also , they merely made a recommendation to redress the vexatious actions of those people who aided and abated against me after the damage had been done to me mentally. As far as I’m aware all guilty parties have refused to do individual mediation with me and the management in my unit did not ask them to do group mediation. Can you image having to work with a group of malicious ladies. I will never be able to trust any of them ever again and now I have to change as person and not always trust people I work with and I have to second guess most people.

I need some help with my appeal:
I’m going to appeal as with my second investigation unattended (statements) they again failed to follow their own policy. I will on not mention them all but all the Principles of natural Justice were missing which is in line with their own policy. As the investigation was over the statements could not hurt anyone but me and right now it has harmed me two folds as I have been given a warning for an accident. Although their were protective marking on the statement, my understanding of the protective marking related to the statements was to protect the investigation when the investigation was live case as the investigation was over when I left them accidentally on the photocopier ,why have they given me a warning. in particular I had redacted my name and most of the other names on the statements so you couldn't understand the document and in particular who the witnesses were talking about and I don't think I breached Data Protection either because the statement were about me. In addition, I had not noticed the marking as I was so upset how malicious and money hungry ladies would do such a thing. At times the investigation was based on speculation and I believe that they knowing misrepresented evidence. Also they with-held information which showed that the person they interviewed ( senior manger) shared the documents as she was not the person who found them and I believe that I have strong evidence to prove that she asked her (junior manager) for the statements. Therefore, i'm going to do my own investigation and I might suggest that the only person who shared the documents was the person they interviewed, can you believe that they didn't interview the person who found the statements. The person they involved provided inconsistency information, I only fund out as her creditability by asking for a certain emails she mentioned. You may wish to note that, junior staff who work on the same floor but a different team to that senior manger( lady interviewed), told me that they would usually just put unattended documents in the confident waste and note read them. In addition, I used a photocopier on a different floor to which i worked on as I was frightened that the copier on my floor would jam and I would have to seek assistance to get it out of the photocopier



In my appeal I would like to mentioned a H&S duty of care re: employer.

Any help would be appreciated


Thanks in advance:T

dmg24

You might want to reread your post and edit it - it is incredibly difficult to read.

bluetownbarry

OP - this probably makes more sense to you as you are in full possession of the facts. It might be useful breaking the story down to a timeline of significant events then saving the questions for the final paragraph.

no-oneknowsme

Agreed ! i got to about the fifth line and then i had to give up...just couldnt make sense of it.

OP , you will get some good help and advice on here if only people are able to read your post a little easier...

Go through it and see if you can make it a little easier on the eye.

CFC

Agree with the others, this makes little sense as it stands

LittleVoice

daisycha wrote: »

*Advice required, is there a legal term for this?
Advice required for my appeal:
. . .advice on how to appeal whereby my employers have failed to follow their own procedures on numerous counts which is also in line with the Principles of Natural Justice?

Please note that all of the principle of Natural Justice were missing,

(A) The Hearing Rule( they decided to change the reason for investigation when they issued me with a warning) ,
(B) The Bias Rule, (the previous investigation officer and the same HR person decided that they could be their own judge as they should have been potential suspects as the documents were not found on the floor I worked on and one still had copies and the other said I gave my copy to the CO and they were never interviewed and decided that it should go to formal Investigation with is not in line with best practise ) and
(C) The Evidence Rule (parts of the investigation was based on mere speculation and suspicion. . . .

Like others have said, it is very difficult to understand what is going on.

Can you clarify, please:

(A) Did the Warning specify one misdemeaner as the reason for the warning, when the notice had been about something else? Did the reason in the Warning arise directly from the investigation?

(B) Were the people reviewing their previous decision or just the facts of the matter?

(C) A workplace disciplinary investigation is not a court of law. They can work on a reasonable belief basis.

SarEl

I did manage the get to the end of it - and I still don't fully understand the post. But it seems, in a nutshell, that you printed out a confidential document relating to a disciplinary, and then left it on the printer where it could be (and was) found by somebody else. The outcome of that disciplinary or who it relates to is not relevant. It would appear that you agree that you printed it, and that (for whatever reason) you did leave it on the printer. On that basis, it would certainly appear that there is a case to answer. Whether or not that leads to a warning is yet to be determined. But this is a separate matter from the original disciplinary, and so if the same people investigate it there is nothing wrong in the employer requiring them to do so. I think that your original question intended to ask, has the employer done anything unlawful - the answer is no, not based on what you have said here. Whether or not certain details were redacted, you knew the document was restricted and you should have taken more care with it and not left it lying on a printer for anyone to see. So your arguments as to why you did do not hold any real merit. I am afraid that you may have walked into this one, but on the slightly more positive side, that is not to say that the disciplinary will not accept your mitigation, and in the worst case, this would almost certainly not be sufficient cause for more than a warning (unless the contents of the document are very serious).

no-oneknowsme

Good to see you back SarEL

penny2shones

If you lose your appeal, I think you will have a good case for Employment Tribunal esp on duty of care, section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

daisycha

Littlevoice, :beer:for your questions, I hope my answers below will help others to understand my situation.

(A) (Natural Justice) The Hearing Rule( they decided to change the reason for investigation when they issued me with a warning) , A)
Q: from littlevoiceDid the Warning specify one misdemeaner as the reason for the warning, when the notice had been about something else? Did the reason in the Warning arise directly from the investigation?
My answer: No, the investigation was to find out why the statements were left by on the photocopier. The only reason why I believe they change the charge is that they could not give me a warning for breaching my own confidentially also the first investigation was over so I could not prejudice the outcome of a closed investigation. In the investigator's consideration to confirm that I have a case to answer he merely mentioned that the report I had in my care stated that no sharing was allowed. It might be worth noticing that I did not leave the report on the photocopier just a few redacted statements. In addition, our on line guidance states you can share with a union rep or a work companion. I have evidence that they person they interview should be charged for sharing but I won't mentioned that her. In addition, the senior manger in my team often breaches confidentially about me again I won’t go into that here, I have strong evidence that I have been victimised by the senior manger who said that an formal investigation was required.

(B) The Bias Rule, (the previous IO and the same HR person decided that they could be their own judge as they should have been potential suspects as the documents were not found on the floor I worked on and one still had copies and the other said I gave my copy to the CO and they were never interviewed and decided that it should go to formal Investigation with is not in line with best practise ) and .

question from littlevoice (B) Were the people reviewing their previous decision or just the facts of the matter? I’m sure if I understand the question. The HR person had his own copy of the statements. The Investigating Officer also had copies and told HR that he had given everything to the previous Commissioning Officer and had not kept any copies. When the CO was interviewed he said that the HR person also had a copy, the IO was then oblige to go back to the HR person who told him he could carry the investigation. HR sent a personal statement to say that he did not leave any statements unattended and his copy is safely locked away and only used the photocopier on the floor he works on. I think it worth nothing that both the IO and HR were not interviewed however when the document were found the evidence both led to one of them. Therefore they both judge their own cases. As The IO nor the HR person follow procedures in my previous case and The IO missed out vital evidence and said that “I had a case to answer” on two of the four counts. However, when I saw all the fabricated evidence I was able to prove my innocence and the previous Commissioning Officer also noted other things to prove my evidence that I wasn't even aware of and he over tuned the IO’s decision and concluded that “I did not have a case to answer”. So it would appear that they used the opportunity to harass and victimised both of us (a vendetta). When the statements were found they where on a different floor form where we all work and I was not in the building nor was the previous CO. When the statements were found there was nothing leading to me nor the previous IO, neither of us had anything to gain by deliberately or accidentally leaving the statements on the copier. You may wish to note that some how they stated the wrong date of the day the documents were found during most of the interview and in writing on numerous occasions the IO even tried to hid the fact but I caught him out during my interview and part of the evidence of that was the person he interviewed stated the correct date and guess what? They decided not to include that evidence in my report but I wrote to the CO and asked for it and that evidence indicated that the person they interview acted in correctly and she should be charged for what they have charged me for and also she was not the prime witness. “The IO should have had no previous involvement in the case and should be seen to be acting independently “The IO will interview appropriate witnesses (i.e. those who are able to provide relevant information” The person who he interviewed could not answer all his questions and it is my belief he should have interviewed the prime witness

Question from littlevoice: (C) A workplace disciplinary investigation is not a court of law. They can work on a reasonable belief basis.

My answer: If I don't win my appeal, I will take it to ET as I believe that I can show that I have been treated less favourable but I won't go into all the details here but it will also include Intimidation,Harassment and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. in addition,the incorrect procedures used and their actions has affected my health and made my condition worse. :mad:

daisycha

So no-one knows the answer to my question??