Disciplinary advice

SarEl

bluelight wrote: »

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 have stayed out of this thread because I think it is entirely unclear what is going on, and I can't usefully add anything but further speculation. But I do have to correct this, because it is misleading. There are statutory provisions for employees who are disciplined and/or dismissed for speaking about about health and safety matters through the proper channels. Accidentally bumping into any old manager and casually mentionmg it isn't going to be considered a proper channel.

But other than that, one way or another, there is something considerable missing here it would appear. There is too wide a discrepancy between what the OP's sister says has happened and what the employer appears to be alleging (if they are indeed disciplining her!), and without hearing the detail of the employers version v. her version it is hard to surmise anything. I presume, that alongside clarifying that this is a disciplinary, she will be asking for the evidence to prepare her defence??? That may throw some light of what is happening.

Savvy_Sue

Rebecca01 wrote: »

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

I'd phone HR and ask who the union reps are, or phone the union and ask if they know of any on site.

dickydonkin

MyUserName wrote: »

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:



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.

You have assumed that the Health & Safety Manager is accessible and works on site. In many organisations - this is not the case as they may be based at a company's head office.

Furthermore - based on this:

A chemical was found at her work that is dangerous that she had been subject to for two months. The employer knew but didnt tell her. Further tests were done and more was found.
She asked why she wasnt informed and tester said she should have been given this certain document. She wasnt given it.

The company were already aware of the contamination but failed to inform their employees.

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)

Are you using the term 'reportable' in respect of legal requirements under RIDDOR or just company procedures? This situation (based on the post) would not be reportable under legislation.

Furthermore, how could the OP's sister know the seriousness of the contamination until it had been scientifically analysed? The employer would be the first to obtain the analysis report and should therefore have acted upon it.

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) .

Again - the employer was fully aware of the contamination after receiving the report - the employees were not.

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?

I still get the feeling there is something missing here and speculation is really not helping anyone. I have based my responses on the information available - but again, I just don't think the full story has been provided

jc808

bluelight wrote: »

...HR department, or are they using a freelance "Rent-A-Bully" HR consultant? .

Lol, I know those people!!!!

jc808

From your latest posts R, it seems they ARE accusing your sister, for replying to the soil sampler with 'I should have been made aware...' thus an indirect accusation

I think this case is flimsy as F, personally... will read with keen interest

gibson123

It appears to me that you do not understand the accusation and that you have not had time to prepare. You should write to your employer stating you feel that because you have been ill and because the allegations against you are unclear that you have not been given adequate time to prepare and that you would like the hearing re-scheduled. You should also ask that the allegations against you are quantified in a way that is clearer, including who is making the allegation, when the allegation was made, why the allegation is against you and what are the consequences should the allegation by proved by the employer. Once you have received these details you should go to a workers rights charity or CAB and ask for some help. (ask the TUC what is available in your area). Good luck, and just in case it goes ahead tomorrow, here is a technique to practise (with your sister?)

Get you sister to ask a question that may come up in the disciplinary.
Turn the question on itself so that you and the person asking totally understand the question.
Write the question and answer on a notepad and then answer. In big letters on your pad put down WHO? WHEN? WHY? HOW?
Do not answer a question you do not understand.

example:

Q...Can you explain why you used unsafe behaviour in the workplace?

Note pad... unfair practices - what does that mean? Do I understand the question.

You.... Are you asking if I used unfair practises in the workplace? Can you be more specific please?

Q.... I am asking if at any time you knew that there was asbestos on site?

Notepad .... did I know, when did I know, how did I know, what did I do?

You... I did not know that there was asbestos on the site, until (date), I was informed of this on (date) by (person), I voiced my concerns to....

You need to prepare... do not answer a question you have not written down the answer to, take as much time as you want. Good luck, let us know how it goes.

SarEl

I agree that the employers allegations are still not clear from this, and I would be asking for a postponement on the grounds that the allegations are unclear and no evidence has been provided in order to allow you to prepare a proper defence. Especially since if (and I assume your sister has quoted the letter verbatim) the employers vaguely illiterate letter indicates that they may be seeking dismissal as an outcome.

I also have some further questions:

If you are the project manager for this refit, why did you not have the phase 1 study? Is it not your responsibility as the project manager to ensure that you are fully familiar with the site, potential hazards, and the work needing to be done?

What exactly did you say to the Operations Manager when you met him in the street? What did he say?

Rebecca01

SarEl wrote: »

I agree that the employers allegations are still not clear from this, and I would be asking for a postponement on the grounds that the allegations are unclear and no evidence has been provided in order to allow you to prepare a proper defence. Especially since if (and I assume your sister has quoted the letter verbatim) the employers vaguely illiterate letter indicates that they may be seeking dismissal as an outcome.

I also have some further questions:

If you are the project manager for this refit, why did you not have the phase 1 study? Is it not your responsibility as the project manager to ensure that you are fully familiar with the site, potential hazards, and the work needing to be done?

What exactly did you say to the Operations Manager when you met him in the street? What did he say?

I recieved a survey from the client on the fabric of the building , as it was a new build there was no reason to suspect anything untoward on the exterior soil until the person showed up to take the soil samples.

I think there is possibly an issue , maybe conflict of interest , as the company owns the building they we were doing the work for. To rent out to a third party.

Thanks all for your great advice. I will try to arrange an appoitment with the CAB in the morning.
Good idea about trying to think of answers to all possible questions.

Sambucus_Nigra

Is it not procedure to look into prior use of any land prior to building on it. It always used to be. For example, somewhere in planning there should be a document that states prior use, and a design and access statement should document how the thing is to be build including disposal of prior contaminants.

Someone somewhere has missed a huge trick here.

Rebecca01

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Is it not procedure to look into prior use of any land prior to building on it. It always used to be. For example, somewhere in planning there should be a document that states prior use, and a design and access statement should document how the thing is to be build including disposal of prior contaminants.

Someone somewhere has missed a huge trick here.

The planning permission states that no work should be done until the ground is investigated and dealt with.

I feel the company cared more about getting the job done on time and less about this.