Help worried sick here. Gross Misconduct

Mrs_Optimist

Agree with the above post, sometimes words can be missheard. In his old job DH was hauled in for a rollocking because an (elderly) client had written in complaining about him, claiming he had referred to her as a "geriatric job" when his manager called to speak to him whilst he was with her. What he had ACTUALLY said was he was on a "reactive job" - reactive being the term for the emergency call out he was dealing with. It is sometimes easier than you think to get the wrong end of the stick.

Stick to your guns, tell the truth and fingers crossed the outcome will be good for you.

Jarndyce

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Another possible 'defence' could be pursued, depending on what it is alleged someone said (although the whole thing sounds so flimsy!)

Could an innocent remark have been misheard?

I work for a small charity, and a colleague and I reduced the office to tears of laughter after the following exchange:

me: "that pastor from the local church has phoned, they are going to give us ..."

they, in shocked tones: "did you say that b*stard from the local church?"

me: "yes, that's right, the pastor says they want to give us ... and he was checking that was OK, I said it was."

they: "why are you calling him a b*stard?"

me: "because he is a pastor, you know, like a vicar."

The penny dropped.

Everyone standing between us could hear what each of us was saying, but we couldn't hear what the other one was saying.

Five people thanking you for this, when you are advocating that the OP lies to his employer? !!! I despair.

SarEl

Jarndyce wrote: »

Five people thanking you for this, when you are advocating that the OP lies to his employer? !!! I despair.

To be fair, I don't think Savvy Sue was advocating lying. It was an error of judgement to suggest that it was a "defence" (sic} rather than a defence, plain and simple. People do mishear things, and the manager in question appears to be unclear about exactly what he heard, what was said and who said it. It is possible of course that the OP (and their colleagues) is lying through their teeth and either said it or knows who said it, but we simply do not know that. Much depends on the evidence of the manager (and we also don't really know that either). If the manager is quite certain as to what was said, and by which group of employees, then providing the employer treats them all the same way then the employer might get away with even a dismissal. It's the old "we know that the theft was committed by Peter or Paul but we don't know which so we are sacking them both" routine - this is fair in law.

Of course, for any outcome less than dismissal it is all pointless speculation as it isn't actionable so the employer can do as they wish, including decide that the case isn't proven. But it is a reasonable defence to say that you heard nothing and could it be that the manager was in error and misheard it. Then it is down to how certain certain the employer can be that the manager didn't mishear, and whether, in the case of a dismissal, they can show that such a belief was reasonable.

But I really didn't think SavvySue was advocating lying - and I suspect the thanks were more to do with the fact that it was a very funny story! One I am sure the pastor would probably have appreciated the humour of!

Jarndyce

SarEl wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think Savvy Sue was advocating lying. It was an error of judgement to suggest that it was a "defence" (sic} rather than a defence, plain and simple. People do mishear things, and the manager in question appears to be unclear about exactly what he heard, what was said and who said it. It is possible of course that the OP (and their colleagues) is lying through their teeth and either said it or knows who said it, but we simply do not know that. Much depends on the evidence of the manager (and we also don't really know that either). If the manager is quite certain as to what was said, and by which group of employees, then providing the employer treats them all the same way then the employer might get away with even a dismissal. It's the old "we know that the theft was committed by Peter or Paul but we don't know which so we are sacking them both" routine - this is fair in law.

Of course, for any outcome less than dismissal it is all pointless speculation as it isn't actionable so the employer can do as they wish, including decide that the case isn't proven. But it is a reasonable defence to say that you heard nothing and could it be that the manager was in error and misheard it. Then it is down to how certain certain the employer can be that the manager didn't mishear, and whether, in the case of a dismissal, they can show that such a belief was reasonable.

But I really didn't think SavvySue was advocating lying - and I suspect the thanks were more to do with the fact that it was a very funny story! One I am sure the pastor would probably have appreciated the humour of!

Fair enough - I apologise. Its been a long day!

SarEl

Jarndyce wrote: »

Fair enough - I apologise. Its been a long day!

Yes, they happen! Although these days for me they seem to be more "bad hair days" (which for me is any day I haven't actually been to the hairdresser - tools and products are a waste on my hair which does what it damned well wants )

Savvy_Sue

Jarndyce wrote: »

Five people thanking you for this, when you are advocating that the OP lies to his employer? !!! I despair.

I absolutely wasn't advocating lying!

SarEl wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think Savvy Sue was advocating lying. It was an error of judgement to suggest that it was a "defence" (sic} rather than a defence, plain and simple.

I'm still struggling a bit with the distinction. A manager heard something offensive, but cannot identify who said it. Denying that anything was said doesn't seem to have worked, so asking whether that was in fact what he heard could be the way to go.

Actually maybe that's an attack rather than a defence!

SarEl wrote: »

Of course, for any outcome less than dismissal it is all pointless speculation as it isn't actionable so the employer can do as they wish, including decide that the case isn't proven. But it is a reasonable defence to say that you heard nothing and could it be that the manager was in error and misheard it. Then it is down to how certain certain the employer can be that the manager didn't mishear, and whether, in the case of a dismissal, they can show that such a belief was reasonable.

And we've had another example of how easy it is to mishear something.

SarEl wrote: »

But I really didn't think SavvySue was advocating lying - and I suspect the thanks were more to do with the fact that it was a very funny story! One I am sure the pastor would probably have appreciated the humour of!

We never dared tell them. However the item which they donated was always known as the illegitimate ...

Jarndyce wrote: »

Fair enough - I apologise. Its been a long day!

No problem. I've had a few of them in my time!

phathanded

The thing is I have not heard anyone make a homophobic comment or said it myself. In my investigation i was told that the remark was shouted towards the manager and he could hear from 10-15 feet away. The investigating officer made me feel stupid, saying they found it difficult to believe that the manager heard it and I didnt.
Since I have been suspended they have re-interviewed the manager who made the complaint and he now says in his statement that the comment was made in discussion between me and two other collegues.
I find it very hard to see how he could have heard a comment clearly from 10-15 feet away and yet I have no recollection of anyone saying anything like the comment that was apparantley made. My employer hasnt asked anyone else who was definately within the 10-15 feet range if they heard any such comment and I just feel like they are taking the managers side straight away.
i am so stressed out over this and I have had two weeks suspended and constant worry over something I have had nothing to do with.
The third individual who the manager could not recognise has had none of this worry. Me and my other collegue stated the employees who could have been the third individual and not one of them has been questioned about it.
Both me and the other colleague investigated have the same account of the so called incident and yet it still felt like during the investigation the investigating officer had already made his decision we were guilty.
I really appriciate everyones input thankyou so much during this horrible time.

zzzLazyDaisy

phathanded wrote: »

I really appriciate everyones input thankyou so much during this horrible time.

It is a horrible experience and you have my sympathy.

However it is very important to understand the role of the investigating officer. His job is simply to carry out an investigation and gather the facts. He then passes the information to the manager who has been appointed to hear the disciplinary. That is his job done.

He takes no part in the decision making process. It is not his job to decide if you are guilty or not, he just has to make records of what each person says, so that the person hearing the disciplinary has all the facts before them. You should also have copies of all the statements and any other evidence that might be taken into account at the disciplinary hearing. The hearing is then your opportunity to explain things from your point of view, and to point out anything that you consider relevant - which would include inconsistencies.

It is only then that a decision will be made on whether, in the decision maker's opinion, he believes that you are guilty of the conduct complained of.

It would be very rare indeed for an investigation to result in the disciplinary being halted, because the investigating officer doesn't have the power to make a decision one way or the other. It is one person's word against another and that is a matter for the decision maker at the disciplinary hearing.

So please try not to get ahead of yourself. Yes, being suspended pending a disciplinary is serious, and yes it could cost you your job if the hearing goes against you BUT it is by no means a foregone conclusion.

phathanded

Thanks Lazy your opinion is very valuable to me. Just another point the manager taking my discipilinary hearing and me have never seen eye to eye. Do you think that will go against me? Or does the manager have to just go on the facts of the case only?

zzzLazyDaisy

phathanded wrote: »

Thanks Lazy your opinion is very valuable to me. Just another point the manager taking my discipilinary hearing and me have never seen eye to eye. Do you think that will go against me? Or does the manager have to just go on the facts of the case only?

The manager must make the decision based on the facts of the case only. Although human nature being what it is, you can't rule out personal opinion coming into play.

However if you are not happy with the decision you have the right to appeal and that should be heard by someone higher up the food chain who has not been involved in the previous investigation and disciplinary hearing. You will then get a fair chance to explain why you think the disciplinary decision is unfair or unreasonable based on the evidence revealed by the investigation. The manager hearing the disciplinary will know this, and this is a big incentive to do the job properly and fairly.