Carrying out a disciplinary when it's not your job

CFC

getmore4less wrote: »

If these issues are serious and I would think life threatening is serious.

I would be asking why these issues have not been uncovered before.

Are there issue with the process and procedures that allowed these issues not to come to light

If the process and procedures are OK why did the management not spot the problems sooner.

If they only spotted issue one why not the others that OH found

there is clearly a bigger problem than one employee.

perhap all the places need a full audit.

Any H&S people in the company that need to get involved.

Should these issues be notified to the authorities?

I wouldn't be asking these questions as they are IMO not relevant to a disciplinary hearing. They are more of a process improvement investigation. At the moment and on the face of it there is an issue with only one employee.

getmore4less

CFC wrote: »

I wouldn't be asking these questions as they are IMO not relevant to a disciplinary hearing. They are more of a process improvement investigation. At the moment and on the face of it there is an issue with only one employee.

I disagree.

If the OP is being included as an "expert" then they should look at the process/proceedures as part of the evidence of the employees issues that have been uncovered.

if this should have been uncovered earlier then there are far reaching implications.

zzzLazyDaisy

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

Freudian slip again! I think the manager is holding a disciplinary not a dismissal!

OOps! yes sorry! I did mean to say disciplinary! That's what responding after a glass of red wine does!

DVardysShadow

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

OOps! yes sorry! I did mean to say disciplinary! That's what responding after a glass of red wine does!

Phew! I was beginning to think you might have gone to the Idi Amin School of Justice. "First we will give them a fair trial and then we will shoot them"

Acc72

getmore4less wrote: »

I disagree.

If the OP is being included as an "expert" then they should look at the process/proceedures as part of the evidence of the employees issues that have been uncovered.

if this should have been uncovered earlier then there are far reaching implications.

This raises an interesting point.

The OP says that her husband doesn't know what to do in these circumstances, his manager does not know what to do, HR do not know what to do (or appear to be unwilling to help), so could it be that the person being disciplined was working to the best of their knowledge / training, but there were issues that they were just not aware of ?

Surely the company should have systems in place - particularly if the situation is so serious.

In his investigation, would the OP's husband be expected to focus on the specifics on the case only and ignore all other factors that would put the company in a poor light ?

What happens if there is then an accident at the site - would a Director say that this "expert witness" (the OPs husband) did a thorough investigation and all was ok H&S wise ?

zzzLazyDaisy

Acc72 wrote: »

This raises an interesting point.

The OP says that her husband doesn't know what to do in these circumstances, his manager does not know what to do, HR do not know what to do (or appear to be unwilling to help), so could it be that the person being disciplined was working to the best of their knowledge / training, but there were issues that they were just not aware of ?

It very much depends on what exactly his role is. If he is conducting the investigation, then of course he must conduct a thorough investigation.

But if he is being asked to give a professional report on the incident itself (which seems likely) then that is all that is required of him. He is only one cog in the investigation.

The person conducting the investigation should check all training, paperwork, possibly speak to other employees depending on what turns up, and will possibly want to speak to OP's OH about his report if there is anything that isn't clear, for example. This may, or may not, be the same manager who is conducting the disciplinary, but either way it is not for OP's OH to get involved with other aspects of the investigation unless he has been appointed to carry out that role.

hcb42

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Phew! I was beginning to think you might have gone to the Idi Amin School of Justice. "First we will give them a fair trial and then we will shoot them"

but surely in such a cut and shut case, shooting is ok no? :eek:

a report on the facts of lack of adherence to process for the OPs OH is one thing, but if they do mean hold a disciplinary, then if the manager cannot do it, it is the manager who should seek the necessary training and support from this (rather feeble) HR team.

jobbingmusician

Yes, I think there is a lot of confusion here between holding an investigation, holding a disciplinary and holding a dismissal

The main point of this post, however, is to advise the OP's husband to conduct all interaction with the HR department in writing, if they are as unhelpful as they sound, and to keep copies.

ohreally

What was the outcome?