Suspended - Gross Misconduct

lewishardwick

Hi all,

Just looking for a bit of simple advice.

If someone is Suspended pending an investigation for gross misconduct, one would assume offering notice/resignation (without prejudice, if that's a thing) would be the best way to save face for all parties? I do nto know the full details (it's not me), but I personally would think that this is far more preferable to the investigation upholding the allegation and ending up being dismissed with immediate effect.

What rights to prospective employers have to receive this information?

I know most references ask for dates of employment, salary, sickness etc. But would the old employer be obliged to advise that the candidate was dismissed for gross misconduct?

Many thanks!

[Deleted User]

If it was serious enough the company could refuse your resignation and/or just carry on the disciplinary process anyway.


As far as referencing goes, it depends on if the prospective employer asks about any disciplinary records or not.


The other issue is lying if they apply for a new job and are asked for the reason for leaving. If they lied and it was found out in future you could end up with the same result.


My view is they are better off focusing on mitigation but without knowing the detail its very hard for people to offer an opinion on here.

Undervalued

lewishardwick wrote: »

What rights to prospective employers have to receive this information?

I know most references ask for dates of employment, salary, sickness etc. But would the old employer be obliged to advise that the candidate was dismissed for gross misconduct?

Not "obliged" to (except in a few regulated professions) but they certainly could do.

It is important to note that even if the employee resigns the employer could still say they resigned whilst under investigation for suspected gross misconduct.

Under some circumstances it may be possible to negotiate an "exit" with an agreement for a pre agreed reference.

lewishardwick

OK thanks.

It's not me that has the issue so I don't want to divulge too much without their permission.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming weeks!

Undervalued

camelot1971 wrote: »

If it was serious enough the company could refuse your resignation and/or just carry on the disciplinary process anyway.

Apart from a very few occupations an employer cannot "refuse" a resignation. Provided the employee gives the required notice they cannot stop him leaving.

FBaby

Also not all gross misconduct investigations actually lead to instant dismissal, but only the person going through it knows whether they have a case to defend or not.

dd32d

References can only provide facts and correct information.

If someone resigned whilst under investigation for gross misconduct, a company could say exactly that - that the employee resigned whilst subject to a gross misconduct investigation. It doesn't state the employee was dismissed just the facts.

bigjl

Very few jobs allow resignation when undergoing an investigation for Gross Misconduct.

The NHS used to allow it but I think that has changed, same for Police.

As far as being resigning rather than being sacked Gross Misconduct I doubt it will make a difference.

When I retired from the NHS I was "technically" sacked via a Capability Hearing and Retired the day I finished working my notice, which was three months if I remember correctly.

I have been asked when applying for other NHS jobs if Ibhave ever been sacked and have to declare the Capability Hearing. Meaning it is extremely unlikely to ever get a Public Sector job again, which would not have been an issue if I had just Retired due to Age.

Non declaration could possibly result in dismissal at a later date and possible investigation for obtaining a Percunary Advantage by Deception.

bigjl

dd32d wrote: »

References can only provide facts and correct information.

If someone resigned whilst under investigation for gross misconduct, a company could say exactly that - that the employee resigned whilst subject to a gross misconduct investigation. It doesn't state the employee was dismissed just the facts.

That is what the law says.

Real life is somewhat different, which is how Public Sector Black lists operate, the HR Gang have learned from previous mistakes with having an actual list and now simply make a phonecall for an off the record chat about a prospective employee, with the written reference being a simply confirmation of dates the person was employed.

Which is basically a red flag for the phonecall.

Undervalued

bigjl wrote: »

Very few jobs allow resignation when undergoing an investigation for Gross Misconduct.

The NHS used to allow it but I think that has changed, same for Police.

No.

Virtually all "allow" resignation whilst under investigation as they are powerless to stop it.

There are a few exceptions in certain regulated professions and, as you say, that now includes police officers.

However apart from those exceptions no other employer can stop somebody from resigning. If the person fails to give the required notice then the employer MAY have a civil claim against them. However if, as is usually the case, the person is suspended any such claim would be moot as the employer would have suffered no quantifiable loss.

ab1982

bigjl wrote: »

That is what the law says.

Real life is somewhat different, which is how Public Sector Black lists operate, the HR Gang have learned from previous mistakes with having an actual list and now simply make a phonecall for an off the record chat about a prospective employee, with the written reference being a simply confirmation of dates the person was employed.

Which is basically a red flag for the phonecall.

I'm calling bulls**t.

Off the record conversations maybe but "Public sector blacklists"... rubbish. Anyone maintaining such a list would be acting illegally. It happens now and then in certain industries but nobody in a public sector management position would take the risk of running, or subscribing to any blacklists because there is absolutley no benefit to them (they are just an employee too).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36242312 is the last instance I heard of this happening.