Is notice required prior to an investigation meeting?

Merrylegs1969

The management (lots of them) turned up at about midnight and took her and some others from the shop floor and interviewed them, along with note takers present, following that interview they were all suspended.

They were then formally invited to an investigation meeting a few days later, in reality really a 2nd 'investigation'. Thereafter to disciplinary about a week later and dismissal.

The supervisor who gave permission for them to have a fag is still working there, which I find rather off.

ETA: Interestingly, their suspension letters had all been pre-printed at the ready.

Sambucus_Nigra

Did they get that permission in writing?

It could have been a planned management ploy - giving them enough rope and all that.

Hmm71

Didn't she have any access to a union rep at the second meeting? Did she mention that the manager had given her permission to smoke? Though knowing some of the managers I've had in the past it wouldn't surprise me if he/she had completely denied giving permission.

Merrylegs1969

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Did they get that permission in writing?

It could have been a planned management ploy - giving them enough rope and all that.

Wouldn't surprise me really.

I haven't got a copy of the handbook and no one I know has, seem to be scarcer than hen's teeth. It might seem a bit suss if I go looking for one, tbh they've been out for my blood ever since I had an accident at work and I'm wary of sticking my head too far above the parapet. I don't mind helping her in the background but, the less they know the better as far as I'm concerned.

No permission in writing but, I know he did and so do others, it just stinks really.

Sambucus_Nigra

Ok - tell her to register on here and the lady who runs that site will help her to decide whether she has a case or not. She's an employment lawyer and will work out the best points to make on any appeal.

She needs to ask herself though otherwise you could be in the deep end. And that's not fair.

Merrylegs1969

Hmm71 wrote: »

Didn't she have any access to a union rep at the second meeting? Did she mention that the manager had given her permission to smoke? Though knowing some of the managers I've had in the past it wouldn't surprise me if he/she had completely denied giving permission.

At the second meeting, yes. Worse than useless really, allowed them to keep comments 'off the record' etc. another one who's rather intimidated by them I think.

He has denied it however, as 4 people say he did you would think there was enough 'reasonable doubt' which I thought formed the basis of disciplinary decisions. She's a nice girl who works hard, not clued up at all about this kind of thing and I just hate to see her shafted.

zzzLazyDaisy

It sounds like they followed procedure. To challenge the lack of warning prior to suspension is pointless and will divert attention away from the the stronger elements of the appeal.

1 as others have said, have staff been warned that smoking on the premises is a GM offence likely to result in dismissal? You must check the disciplinary procedure/employee handbook/ internal memos/ notice board etc.

2 is smoking on the premises a health and safety issue - do you work with flammable substances for example? this may affect the reasonableness of the decision

3 a midnight swoop does seem like overkill for an illicit smoke, so it does sound as if there is more to it than that. you need to know the full facts

4 ask for a copy of the employer's minutes of the meeting which resulted in dismissal. also was she accompanied and did that person take notes? Check the two sets of notes to make sure the record of the meeting is accurate and nothing has been overlooked.

5 IF the manager gave permission (and assuming he had the authority to do so) it seems unfair that the staff have been dismissed. IF it can be argued that he was acting on the employers behalf the staff had no reason to believe that he did not have the authority to make that decision, then this is a point worth pursuing as inconsistent treatment. What concerns me is that it seems that all the staff who were actually smoking have been dismissed, so to that extent it is not inconsistent treatment. It may be that the manager's role was not what you believe it to be and/or he may have been disciplined and given some other sanction because of factors that you are not aware of. If he was also smoking outside with them, then yes, that is clear. But it could be that he has denied knowing about this activity and has been believed by the management (for example).

Sambucus_Nigra

I thought there could be inconsistency as the OP said that someone who seemingly admitted doing it hadn't been dismissed. The OP didn't say that this was the same person that had given permission.

Merrylegs1969

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Ok - tell her to register on here and the lady who runs that site will help her to decide whether she has a case or not. She's an employment lawyer and will work out the best points to make on any appeal.

She needs to ask herself though otherwise you could be in the deep end. And that's not fair.

Brilliant, haven't come across that site before, I'll pass it along. If I didn't feel so sorry for her I'd laugh, the 'Appeal Hearing Officer' is the store manager who has orchestrated the entire thing since day one. Indeed he even led the charge of management into the store that night.

She won't get it overturned but, I would like for them to be less than comfortable and smug, I'm guessing they're expecting she'll attend begging and pleading and b ugger off quietly,

Anyway, I have in laws coming for the weekend and a house to straighten.......as though there's not enough trouble and strife about!

Thanks for all the help.

zzzLazyDaisy

Merrylegs1969 wrote: »

At the second meeting, yes. Worse than useless really, allowed them to keep comments 'off the record' etc. another one who's rather intimidated by them I think.

He has denied it however, as 4 people say he did you would think there was enough 'reasonable doubt' which I thought formed the basis of disciplinary decisions. She's a nice girl who works hard, not clued up at all about this kind of thing and I just hate to see her shafted.

Just seen this.

Reasonable doubt does not form the basis of a disciplinary process.

In order to dismiss fairly the employer must conduct a thorough investigation, come to an honest and reasonable belief based on the facts available, and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable responses.

That is a much lower hurdle to jump that the 'reasonable doubt' test