Disciplinary advice

KiKi

Rebecca01 wrote: »

Thanks Kiki, Thanks everyone for your advice.

She wasnt even asked to put her grievances in writing, nor did she directly accuse the H and s person, only that she should have been informed.

She said she will do that Monday morning , but she cant think of anyone she can take in with her , except maybe a fellow employee but they know nothing about this as yet.

We still think its against her, she feels they want rid of her.

Then she needs to ask for greater clarification on what they mean by 'forced to work' and why she is being disciplined for something they have already stated was beyond her control (by using the word 'forced').

I've never heard anything so stupid.

KiKi

Rebecca01

Thanks , she will do this Monday morning.

It does seem really unclear.

ohreally

Rebecca01 wrote: »

she will do this Monday morning.

Her priority on Monday morning should be to make contact with a shop steward, discuss the state of play, and arrange representation. This may be an issue of misunderstanding that a steward could sort out short of a disciplinary hearing.

Rebecca01

ohreally wrote: »

Her priority on Monday morning should be to make contact with a shop steward, discuss the state of play, and arrange representation. This may be an issue of misunderstanding that a steward could sort out short of a disciplinary hearing.

She said she doesnt know anyone in the company that is a rep or even in a union.

she just got news saying planning permission 2010, states that no work should be done on building before tests are completed.


hmmm

dickydonkin

KiKi wrote: »

Then she needs to ask for greater clarification on what they mean by 'forced to work' and why she is being disciplined for something they have already stated was beyond her control (by using the word 'forced').

I've never heard anything so stupid.

KiKi

It is possible that the terminology 'forced' is being used incorrectly here.

Pehaps by virtue of the employer not informing the workers immediately of the potential risk and allowing them to work may have been deemed as 'forced'.

I cannot envisage where a health and safety professional would allow this to happen - however, what is worrying is that seems to be the case.

It is irrelevant that the asbestos levels were determined at a later date to be low level - that was more good luck that good management. The employer did not know that at the time and should have assumed a 'worse case scenario' when asbestos was discovered and acted accordingly.

There is still the issue of the BAP contamination which was found to be at high levels. It seems that this is an issue with soil contamination and it would be interesting to know as to what extent and how the OP's sister would become exposed to the contamination. This would also determine potential exposure levels.

dickydonkin

Rebecca01 wrote: »

she just got news saying planning permission 2010, states that no work should be done on building before tests are completed.

A thought occurred to me.

I wonder if your company has an asbestos register - it should have if the material has been discovered previously.

As for the building work - did it actually start and were the contractors informed of the asbestos?

It does sound like the soil was tested for asbestos prior to work commencing and a soil analysis has probably discovered the BAP.

If the employer still allowed employees to work at risk of exposure, then that is blatantly wrong - but without more information, it is difficult to determine the risk and level of exposure.

Orville

Rebecca01 wrote: »

Thanks Kiki.

Well this sounds unreal but she bumped into a manager outside the office and he asked how it was going etc. she said she hadnt been happy and explained the situation.

The letter states

I am writing to invite you to a disciplinary hearing to allow you to explain the following matters.

You have been forced to work on a site contaminated in the full knowledge of the health and safety manager.

We review this matter as potentially serious misconduct.

You have the right to be accompanied by a trade union rep.

Etc

She never said once she was forced, just that she worked without knowledge of it.

Rebecca, i can't comment on any legalities but if what the post quoted contains is word for word what was written on the letter, i would say that you have misunderstood it and they are taking action against the health and safety manager and not your sister. I can't see anything there that should lead you to believe it's her in trouble.

gibson123

As an employee concerned about a health and safety issue you would be expected to raise this with your manager or health and safety representative. If it is not resolved to your satisfaction you would let the HSE know that you had concerns. reporting to the HSE could be very costly for the business. It is the employers duty to ensure the safety of employees, your sisters duty is to not put others in danger and report any concerns on health and safety. it appears that the employer has not followed procedure. My concern is that the disciplinary may have been called to intimidate your sister, so she does not dare bring up safety issues again. now if this is the case, why would the employer be so worried? She needs to be represented, have some-one else go with her to the disciplinary.

MyUserName_4

Reading between the lines and assuming your sister's employer is being unscrupulous in an attempt to cover up their own failure.

Here's my suggestion about what they may be up to:

You have been forced to work on a site contaminated in the full knowledge of the health and safety manager.

But of course your sister didn't mention this to the H&S manager, did she? So the H&S manager may have said that he/she was completely unaware of the threat being posed, because no-one informed him / her that an individual was working there. Which in turn means that your sister was placing herself at risk, if she knew about the risk but did nothing about it.

Then we return to the use of the word "force"; which implies that your sister was aware of risk at the time.

Your sister has never used the word "force" and (based on your posts) it sounds like she has never brought up any argument at any stage that could be construed as her being "forced" to work in a contaminated environment.

Of course your sister's employer may have used this word deliberately, in order to manipulate the disciplinary hearing...which may go a little like this.

Employer: The allegation you're here to answer is that you were forced etc.

Your sister: But I was not forced, I never said I had been forced.

Employer confirms: So no-one forced you to work there and you did this of your own free will.

Employer: Next question. Did you report this to the H&S manager? (watch out for any company procedure which states that all reportable incidents should be directed to the H&S manager)

Your Sister: No, (this bit of her response is noted down) I told Manager X as we bumped into each other in the corridor (this bit of her response is deemed irrelevant by employer when considering the basis of the allegation; which is that she continued to work in an unsafe environment whilst being aware of the risks and did not inform the relevant person) .

Another angle could be that they are manipulating the situation to make it appear as though your sister disobeyed instructions to not work in the contaminated area. As soon as the company became aware of possible contamination, they would have a duty to make it safe and prevent any employees from being exposed to this risk. If they are going to all this trouble to discipline your sister for this, then it wouldn't surprise me if they had already taken steps to cover their tracks.

I have to stress that the above is speculation and may or may not apply to your sister's case. If I were you, I would ask for a clear statement of what is alleged to have happened (in writing) and precisely why your sister is being disciplined. Everyone who attends a disciplinary hearing should be fully aware of what they are being accused of. Ambiguous allegations should not come into it.

It would be interesting to learn what your sister's manager is now saying about this. Is he denying all knowledge?

bluelight

Hi,

You will find that there are statutory provisions that deal with employees who are disciplined and/or dismissed for speaking out about health and safety matters. In the event of dismissal under such circumstances, it is AUTOMATIC UNFAIR DISMISSAL, which means that the employer cannot dispute the claim if it goes to an Employment Tribunal.

I hope I have read this correctly, but it appears to me that your sister was unaware of the chemicals and asbestos until after tests were conducted and the test results made available.

Do your sister's employers have their own in-house HR department, or are they using a freelance "Rent-A-Bully" HR consultant? In order to avoid or lessen the likelihood of being taken to an Employment Tribunal by your sister, her employers are under an obligation to provide her with copies of evidence, if they have not already done so. If this has not yet been done, they dismiss her and the matter goes to an Employment Tribunal, this will go against them. Also, a piece of legislation - Civil Procedures Rules 1998 - applies and requires prior disclosure of evidence.

Turning to health and safety matters, has your sister spoken to the appropriate Industrial Safety Inspectorate? The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) are the main one, with inspectorates covering factories, quarries, railways and other places of work. Local authority EH departments cover retail and office premises.

It almost seems as if your sister's employers are trying to use her as a fall girl for their incompetence. My advice is for her to join a TU asap, if she doesn't already belong to one, or get advice from a legal professional asap.

Whatever, her employers are in the wrong and are heading for an Employment Tribunal.