Investigation at work and suspension - misheard information

thisbubble

Hello everyone, I am asking this question on behalf of someone else.

A friend I know has been suspended at work and had their investigation a few days later. They were given notes from the investigation during which one of the managers were making notes throughout. My friend was extremely upset during the investigation as it had not happened to them before and did not know what to expect. Upon going home and reading the notes in a calmer state, realised that she had misheard some questions and therefore given the wrong answer. The misunderstanding has also meant that she admitted something that she didn't do. The result has been further suspension and possible disciplinary.

My friend wants to rectify the misunderstanding and wants to write a letter to one of the managers, stating her side of the story.

Basically, what I'm asking is, is my friend allowed to do this? Submit a letter stating what happened due to her misunderstanding the questions asked to her during the investigation?

Thank you all for your help.

antonic

I`m afraid they will have to wait for the disciplinary process to conclude, wait for the outcome and then appeal.

Because you say they misheard, management may say that she has only realised what she has confessed to AFTER reading the notes and wants to change her story.

The fact finder only presents the information the decision maker makes the decision (obviously).

Did they attend the meeting with a union rep or a work colleague ?

thisbubble

No, there was no union rep or work colleague as it was an investigation meeting. If it does go to disciplinary, I think she would ask her work colleague.

andygb

thisbubble wrote: »

No, there was no union rep or work colleague as it was an investigation meeting. If it does go to disciplinary, I think she would ask her work colleague.

I would have thought, that she should have been able to take someone with her into the meeting, particularly if notes were being taken, it sounds like a very one sided affair to me, and would certainly intimidate many people.

DVardysShadow

antonic wrote: »

I`m afraid they will have to wait for the disciplinary process to conclude, wait for the outcome and then appeal.

Because you say they misheard, management may say that she has only realised what she has confessed to AFTER reading the notes and wants to change her story.

The fact finder only presents the information the decision maker makes the decision (obviously).

Did they attend the meeting with a union rep or a work colleague ?

I thoroughly disagree. The investigation phase is when these matters are decided and that is when the information should be put right. The record should be set straight at the earliest opportunity - even though it looks bad that she apparently wants to change her story, it looks less bad than leaving it till after a disciplinary is done and dusted.

She should set the record straight asap with a letter, keeping a copy.

Now in respect of the notes, I think it is an equal possibility that rather than the friend mishearing, the manager asking the questions mis-said them, so that the friend heard what was said but the notes misrepresent what was actually said.

LittleVoice

Agree with DVS.

If the notes accurately reflect the answers, provide the versions of the question to which they are the answers. If you like, that's the employees version of the notes of the meeting.

DVardysShadow

LittleVoice wrote: »

Agree with DVS.

If the notes accurately reflect the answers, provide the versions of the question to which they are the answers. If you like, that's the employees version of the notes of the meeting.

Dear <Employer>

I acknowledge receipt of the notes taken by <Manager> in the investigatory held on <date>. I do not accept that these notes are an accurate record and would wish to record the following as my understanding

Question <n> was asked as <question actually asked>

Yours sincerely



Doing it this way, you should avoid falling into the trap of saying 'I mishheard' or pointing any fingers, while at the same timethe questions as given in this letter actually delimit the scope of answers given. For maximum damage limitation, get the letter done quickly.

colino

Whoa! Not only was it unnecessary for the generous employer to give you copies of the notes, it is the investigation stage after all, but they have recorded accurately what was asked and answered. Do you think a, "Now I've realised I've put my foot in it, phoned a friend and came up with better answers, can I try again?" will be OK?
By all means, if it goes to a disciplinary voice your perceived misunderstandings, but don't clutch at straws thinking that recreating history will make any difference now.

DVardysShadow

colino wrote: »

Whoa! Not only was it unnecessary for the generous employer to give you copies of the notes, it is the investigation stage after all, but they have recorded accurately what was asked and answered. Do you think a, "Now I've realised I've put my foot in it, phoned a friend and came up with better answers, can I try again?" will be OK?
By all means, if it goes to a disciplinary voice your perceived misunderstandings, but don't clutch at straws thinking that recreating history will make any difference now.

The important point is that if the questions recorded were not what the employee answered - either due to a failure of hearing on the part of the employee, or a dirty game of falsifying the notes, it needs dealing with on a short time scale from when the employee receives the notes.

Apart from recording wriong questions for simple yes and no answers, it is probably incredibly difficult for the employer to create a totally false impression by simply misrecording the questions and equally difficult for the employee to dispel a false impression. So I think actually if the employee can actually provide plausible questions to the notes which put a very different slant on it, it will reflect worse on the employer.

Aryndeneth

Of course this must be raised now. If it's left until a decision is made and then appealed, the first question they're going to ask is "Why on earth didn't you raise this sooner" If she doesn't raise it now, it will be seen as her accepting the notes as an accurate record of the meeting.

colino

Right I've re-read the OP and it's still the same. The employers "side" was taking notes and only after a period of reflection does the interviewee think they misunderstood the questions, therefore the notes are an accurate recording, whether verbatim or not, of what was asked and answered.
Secondly the investigation stage is very much not "disciplinary". It is there for both sides to make plain their input on an allegation, view or circumstance of an incident in a formal setting.
Having given the interviewee this opportunity the interviewee must have been right off the scale of competence if they are not arguing that what is recorded is wrong, but in a series of questions over a period of time, they mistakenly frequently misunderstood and provided worryingly damaging responses.
By all means complain now before any other action proceeds, but for goodness sake get yourself together before you give the impression you shouldn't be there at all.