False accusation of gross misconduct

SpideressUK

annandale wrote: »

Is he in a union?

Sadly not. This is the first place we would have gone to if he were.

SpideressUK

Bogalot wrote: »

That is irrelevant. If you discuss company matters with outside parties there is the potential for disciplinary action against you.

I'm sure your comments are well intentioned but the OP's husband needs proper advice, not just some random opinion on what you might do in their situation.

In this particular case it was comforting to hear that someone else would have done what my husband did do in those circumstances. My husband was completely in shock at the time, incredulous that such a thing could have been accused of him and all he could think of was finding someone he knew might have been there at the time who could testify to what actually happened.

annandale

It could be seen

Potential

This isn't a client. It's a witness to the event.

The acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance States

The employee should also be given an opportunity to raise points about any information provided by witnesses.

Where an employee or employer intends to call relevant witnesses they should give advance notice that they intend to do so.

You don't get disciplined for asking someone to be a witness for you during the disciplinary process.
The person was a customer. Not a client. They were a witness to what did or didn't happen.

The OPs husband has every right to call on witnesses. It would be ridiculous and breaking employment law if they couldn't without the threat of further disciplinary action against them and it really wouldn't put the employer in a good light if this ended up at tribunal.

As for bringing the business into disrepute? I don't think there's much worse than making up a malicious lie against a colleague. Hopefully CCTV will show that the OPs husband didn't do anything.

He's the victim here. I think sometimes that's too easily forgotten

z1a

"The person was a customer. Not a client. "

A customer IS a client.

Hope it works out OK for you OP.

annandale

If the OP isn't allowed to speak to this witness then who is he going to call on during the disciplinary process to state that the event didn't happen as was said by his colleague. He's supposed not to call a witness just because his employer might discipline him further? Employees have the right to call witnesses during a disciplinary process. The ACAS codes don't specify that you can't call certain witnesses for fear of being disciplined further.

I think ACAS would have something to say about employees being threatened with disciplinary action for calling a witness during a disciplinary process . I've removed a post because it contained personal information but I can assure the person who made the comments about what I said before being random opinion, I wish that were the case. It's far from it.

Good luck OP. Hope it works out for your husband. Just to say that your husband might find it helpful to ask for copies of the company policy on grievance and disciplinary if he doesn't have them to hand and that if he doesn't have a union representative that he has someone to accompany him to a disciplinary hearing, if it goes that far. Hopefully it won't.

I hope things work out for him. Take care

Mersey_2

Bogalot wrote: »

That is irrelevant. If you discuss company matters with outside parties there is the potential for disciplinary action against you.

I'm sure your comments are well intentioned but the OP's husband needs proper advice, not just some random opinion on what you might do in their situation.

Annandale is correct.


It would be contrary to natural justice (there's also employment caselaw on the matter) not to allow the evidence of an independent witness to a crime - which could result in the dismissal of an employee(s) - to be heard.


Indeed, I can also vouch that this happens as I provided a written statement to a plc when I witnessed an argument between two employees in the local supermarket (which - as well as the CCTV - resulted in the manager being dismissed).


Yes, employees should not give away firm's secrets to rivals and so on, but this is clearly not such a case.

Xbigman

annandale wrote: »

The very last thing I'd be doing is apologising for assaulting someone I didn't touch. You apologise and you are basically admitting guilt for a serious accusation. What if the person who said they were assaulted involved the police?

Apologise for an assault you didn't commit! Terrible advice.

Someone making a malicious allegation like this deserves to be investigated for it

Years ago I had an issue with another employee and I was totally in the right. Management didn't want to know. Union didn't want to know (which is why I'm no longer a member). Witnesses didn't want to know. After being driven to the edge of suicide I had a meeting with my manager who told me it was 50/50 and I, yes 'I' should apologise or the matter would become serious. After due consideration I apologised for any misunderstanding and offered to shake hands. An offer that was refused. I kept my job.

The OP's husband has had a serious allegation made against them that is not provable either way. Management may try to avoid a decision by calling it a misunderstanding. In those circumstances it might mean apologising for the misunderstanding and moving on.

Just to make it clear. I'm not saying apologise for hitting someone but if management call for apologies, do it.



Darren

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

How can someone be a witness to something not happening? Did this client follow your husband around all day, everywhere he went?

SpideressUK

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

How can someone be a witness to something not happening? Did this client follow your husband around all day, everywhere he went?

We think he was in the shop at the time that the woman said my husband punched/hit her. Hence how he can be a witness. The woman did not claim that my husband punched/hit her at any other point in time other than around this timescale.

ohreally

I wouldn't hang too much faith in this witness. Even if they are consulted the best testament they can offer is they did not see anything untoward which is not the same as the allegation did not take place.