unfounded work alligations, my rights?

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

The immediate issue may have been resolved. But bullying or mistaken ID is still there and has not been addressed. This saga is likely to continue.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the letter/photo is a good idea as I said in that post.

DandelionPatrol

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Again, the data protection act. The letter would be addressed to a person and it would be private and confidential. Even if it's regarding someone else they're not just allowed to pass that letter on because the data (which contains personal information) is protected by the act.

I asked how does the law apply. Fairly obviously, you were going to quote the DPA, but I am far from convinced that in the event of a complaint against a named individual that the DPA would prevent disclosure. Arguably as it mentions the member of staff, it would have to be disclosed to them if they asked. So essentially the question remains, how does the DPA prevent disclosure to this member of staff?

Flyonthewall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I asked how does the law apply. Fairly obviously, you were going to quote the DPA, but I am far from convinced that in the event of a complaint against a named individual that the DPA would prevent disclosure. Arguably as it mentions the member of staff, it would have to be disclosed to them if they asked. So essentially the question remains, how does the DPA prevent disclosure to this member of staff?

The data protection act is there to protect data. The letter is data and it contains personal information. The whole point of the act is to protect such data and stop it being shared/viewed by others.

Just because it mentions them does not mean it has to be disclosed to them. There are exceptions for refusing to disclose requested information. For example, if it could cause distress. In this case if would be very likely to cause distress.

stevemLS

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I asked how does the law apply. Fairly obviously, you were going to quote the DPA, but I am far from convinced that in the event of a complaint against a named individual that the DPA would prevent disclosure. Arguably as it mentions the member of staff, it would have to be disclosed to them if they asked. So essentially the question remains, how does the DPA prevent disclosure to this member of staff?

s31 DPA data is exempt from disclosure if it is held or processed which is designed to protect from the

"dihsonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct by, or the unfitness or incompetence of, persons authorised to carry on any profession or other activity,"

The OP's accuser is engaged in an "other activity" and the repeated making of false allegations could be taken to be "seriously improper" conduct.

Sufficient authority for you Dandelion?

Nicki

Flyonthewall wrote: »

The data protection act is there to protect data. The letter is data and it contains personal information. The whole point of the act is to protect such data and stop it being shared/viewed by others.

Just because it mentions them does not mean it has to be disclosed to them. There are exceptions for refusing to disclose requested information. For example, if it could cause distress. In this case if would be very likely to cause distress.

The DPA only applies to information stored electronically, or information in paper form which is filed in a way which means it can be retrieved by name.

A single letter to someone who is not your employer and does not therefore have a personnel file for you, would not fall under the Act unless it was sent by email.

Perhaps if you are going to advise on the Act and set such great store on its protections, you should read it first

Flyonthewall

Nicki wrote: »

The DPA only applies to information stored electronically, or information in paper form which is filed in a way which means it can be retrieved by name.

A single letter to someone who is not your employer and does not therefore have a personnel file for you, would not fall under the Act unless it was sent by email.

Perhaps if you are going to advise on the Act and set such great store on its protections, you should read it first

If they are storing it then it is covered. If they're not storing then it has been thrown away and therefore the member of staff could not possibly ever see it.

Nowhere does it say in the act that it only applies to employers with personnel files.

The OP has not stated how the letter would be sent. Who is to say they don't have a file for them anyway though? They may well have a file for them, especially after they've had an interview. Details of that could be stored.

The act states:
"“data” means information which—
(c)is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system"

A relevant filing system could be a file for the OP, for the person receiving the letter, for complaints/issues etc. It doesn't state it has to be a personnel file. The act does not apply only to employers.

duchy

Once was a mistake , twice .......needs addressing - especially as it happened again within months.

Realistically if I had falsely accused someone of misconduct I'd be horrified and would be darn careful not to do it again - but this doesn't appear to be the case with the staff member.

Obviously the OP has no idea if this staff member has a history of this kind of behaviour or not but it is possible they do.

I would send the professional version of the letter (the photograph letter just trivializes the incident) -schools hate paper trails as they cannot ignore them (something parents dealing with SEN provision in schools learn early on - ask verbally and nothing happens - put it in writing and concerns are addressed) as they cannot then claim they didn't know there was an issue or that it happened more than once. If this is habitual behaviour or there are other issues with this staff member then it raises a flag with the school too that the staff member may be under excessive stress or is behaving less than professionally.

Nicki

It doesn't have to be a personnel file true, but a "relevant filing system" for paper documentations means one which organises material in such a way that an individual's personal documentation could be isolated and retrieved easily. A document sitting on a desk is not part of a relevant filing system, and nor would a letter which goes into a file marked "complaints" unless that file were in some way indexed so that that letter could be easily retrieved.

Nor did I say the Act only applies to employers. What I said was that as the school was not the OP's employer it is quite unlikely that they would have a personnel (or other) file on him, whereas they most certainly will have such files for their employees and pupils.

jackyann

Getting back to the original point:

First of all OP, are you in a union?
If so, ask their advice, especially as they are likely to understand the specifics of your workplace situation.
If not, join one. Something is not quite right - I do think managers etc acted appropriately, but someone / something is off-kilter here if it has happened twice - so make sure you are protected.

Secondly, I think 2 mistaken identities within 8 months, very strange, and you described the person as sounding rushed & distracted, none of which bodes well for situations in which formal complaints are made.

I would consider a formal interview with your line manager in which you express your concern that this has happened twice & that you find this distressing (I would too!)

Flyonthewall

Nicki wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a personnel file true, but a "relevant filing system" for paper documentations means one which organises material in such a way that an individual's personal documentation could be isolated and retrieved easily. A document sitting on a desk is not part of a relevant filing system, and nor would a letter which goes into a file marked "complaints" unless that file were in some way indexed so that that letter could be easily retrieved.

Where does it say that?

Nor did I say the Act only applies to employers. What I said was that as the school was not the OP's employer it is quite unlikely that they would have a personnel (or other) file on him, whereas they most certainly will have such files for their employees and pupils.

No but it kind of came across that way.