Gross Misconduct Investigation

FBaby

I have worked in HR for over 25 year and have been called to the stand countless times.

So again, what evidence of victimisation and sex discrimination did you read in this thread, especially since OP confirmed that two other people have been disciplined for similar offenses in the past?

Undervalued

Nicki wrote: »

Whatever your perceived expertise in your own mind, you've still given very reckless advice. You aren't philanthropist in drag are you.

Those of us who have been around for a while have a reasonable idea who another not a new user is and her credentials, and if the guess is right they outrank yours in terms of both qualifications and years of experience

Quite!

I see this "Lady007" has not posted for almost four years, only to surface on Christmas Day!

Reckless? That is putting it mildly.

And yes, Another Not New User is in a totally different league!

Another_not_new_user

Lady007 wrote: »

No time for debate.
I have worked in HR for over 25 year and have been called to the stand countless times.
All cases I have advised on for friends and family I have won. Last payout was this year against a very famous London hospital securing over £47k in a settlement. Even the useless lawyer said it was a no go.

Currently working as a Senior Employee Relations Officer for a organisation of over 3000 employees. Employment law is my bread and butter

What are your credentials?

My credentials are the accuracy of the posts I make. Anything else is simply a claim which cannot be substantiated - just as yours cannot be. But employment law is not your "bread and butter" - you claim to be an HR professional, and every decent HR professional knows that they do not "do" employment law - that is best left to the professionals.


But since you are so experienced you will be aware that:
(a) Claims of constructive unfair dismissal have the worst win rate of any claim - less than 3%
(b) To claim constructive unfair dismissal the claimant must have exhausted the entire of the employers procedures (which the OP's friend has not) and/or there must be a breach so fundamental that it justifies immediate resignation (which there is not - an employer investigating an alleged misconduct is not a breach)
(c) In resigning the OP gives up everything - their job, and their maternity leave /pay from the employer - for a claim of dubious provenance, and for which there is no evidence in the posts here.


By the way - someone who has worked in HR for so many years and has been called to the stand countless times does not appear to be doing their job very well. The entire point of HR is to managed relationships properly to ensure that employment disputes do not get to employment tribunals. Every time you end up in the stand you have failed to achieve that. I would have been more impressed by claimed credentials that included never having needed to be called as a witness.

lincroft1710

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

My credentials are the accuracy of the posts I make. Anything else is simply a claim which cannot be substantiated - just as yours cannot be. But employment law is not your "bread and butter" - you claim to be an HR professional, and every decent HR professional knows that they do not "do" employment law - that is best left to the professionals.


But since you are so experienced you will be aware that:
(a) Claims of constructive unfair dismissal have the worst win rate of any claim - less than 3%
(b) To claim constructive unfair dismissal the claimant must have exhausted the entire of the employers procedures (which the OP's friend has not) and/or there must be a breach so fundamental that it justifies immediate resignation (which there is not - an employer investigating an alleged misconduct is not a breach)
(c) In resigning the OP gives up everything - their job, and their maternity leave /pay from the employer - for a claim of dubious provenance, and for which there is no evidence in the posts here.


By the way - someone who has worked in HR for so many years and has been called to the stand countless times does not appear to be doing their job very well. The entire point of HR is to managed relationships properly to ensure that employment disputes do not get to employment tribunals. Every time you end up in the stand you have failed to achieve that. I would have been more impressed by claimed credentials that included never having needed to be called as a witness.

Lady007 has also given incorrect advice in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5130370

Another_not_new_user

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Lady007 has also given incorrect advice in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5130370

Goodness, yes, that is appalling advice. It's unbelievable the rubbish some "HR professionals" are touting as law these days. Hardly surprising so many employers end up in tribunals, is it?

scaredofdebt

Update.

My friend emailed the company a sick note from the doctor and in the same email stated she was not going to return to work after maternity.

She was just about to email her grievance letter when the MD of the company rang her to discuss a "compromise agreement".

This has now been agreed in a meeting and just needs to be signed.

The agreement means my friend will be paid until the end of the month, effectively on "gardening leave" until then, will get 6 weeks pay tax-free (in effect redundancy payment) plus all holiday pay, they are going to pay back the holiday she took over Christmas when she was suspended as well.

She will get all her maternity pay and they will give a favourable reference, in effect they are dropping all disciplinary proceedings.

In return for this she has to agree not to take the matter further regards unfair or constructive dismissal/discrimination etc.

The amount they are paying is practically as much as she would get (based on solicitors advice) if she won an unfair dismissal action in any case so she is accepting it.

Just thought I'd give you all a final update.

Another_not_new_user

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Update.

My friend emailed the company a sick note from the doctor and in the same email stated she was not going to return to work after maternity.

She was just about to email her grievance letter when the MD of the company rang her to discuss a "compromise agreement".

This has now been agreed in a meeting and just needs to be signed.

The agreement means my friend will be paid until the end of the month, effectively on "gardening leave" until then, will get 6 weeks pay tax-free (in effect redundancy payment) plus all holiday pay, they are going to pay back the holiday she took over Christmas when she was suspended as well.

She will get all her maternity pay and they will give a favourable reference, in effect they are dropping all disciplinary proceedings.

In return for this she has to agree not to take the matter further regards unfair or constructive dismissal/discrimination etc.

The amount they are paying is practically as much as she would get (based on solicitors advice) if she won an unfair dismissal action in any case so she is accepting it.

Just thought I'd give you all a final update.

Compromise agreements no longer exist in law - they are settlement agreements. But linguistics aside, you say this was agreed in a meeting and just needs to be signed. Has she taken legal advice on this? Because if she hasn't, it isn't legally binding.

FBaby

Gosh, they were desperate to get rid of her then! I guess they have assessed that there was less to lose with this compromise than to have her coming back.

scaredofdebt

She had to go to a solicitors to get the agreement signed, presumably they also advised her. The company paid the solicitor.

Undervalued

scaredofdebt wrote: »

She had to go to a solicitors to get the agreement signed, presumably they'll also advise her. The company is paying the solicitor.

For the basic fee (which is generally paid by the company) the solicitor will do the minimum required by law. That is check that the agreement is correctly drafted and advise her of the rights she is signing away. What they won't do, unless she opts to pay them extra herself, is negotiate on her behalf.