Disciplinary witness statements

Drynan101

Good morning all, I hope someone can help me with something.

I have been asked to be the companion at a colleague's disciplinary hearing. Going through all of the evidence thay has been put forward I have noticed that two people who have made a witness statement have both said that they talked prior to the investigation about the evidence requied. This to me looks very suspect as they may have conspired to get the story straight.

My question is what would constitute as making a witness statement void?

Many thanks
David

Undervalued

Drynan101 wrote: »

Good morning all, I hope someone can help me with something.

I have been asked to be the companion at a colleague's disciplinary hearing. Going through all of the evidence thay has been put forward I have noticed that two people who have made a witness statement have both said that they talked prior to the investigation about the evidence requied. This to me looks very suspect as they may have conspired to get the story straight.

My question is what would constitute as making a witness statement void?

Many thanks
David

It is not a court of law so there is no hard and fast answer to your question.

Is what they are saying basically true? If they had not volunteered the information that they had spoken to each other you would have had no means of knowing. Are either of them saying something that they could not know first hand had they not spoken to the other?

Be very careful with words like "conspired"!

Drynan101

I understand conspired is possibly a strong word. I know that they volunteered the information but does volunteering that type of information hold any ground?
According to another witness and my colleague under investigation it is false.
Thankyou for your reply

sangie595

I'm not sure what you mean by holding any ground? In the end it is up to the employer to decide whether they are telling the truth or not. And, as Undervalued has said, the fact they spoke to each other isn't, in itself, a reason to suggest they are lying. When an "incident" takes place, people often talk to each other about it. That doesn't invalidate their version of events.

Undervalued

Drynan101 wrote: »

I understand conspired is possibly a strong word. I know that they volunteered the information but does volunteering that type of information hold any ground?
According to another witness and my colleague under investigation it is false.
Thankyou for your reply

It holds whatever "ground" the employer chooses to put on it.

To dismiss fairly (in law) an employer needs a "reasonable belief" that the employee committed the misconduct and that dismissal is within the range of responses a reasonable employer might choose. That is all.

It is not a criminal court of law with rules of evidence and a requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The employer needs to try to conduct a fair process (within reason). The easiest way for them to do that is to follow the ACAS guidelines. There are no longer mandatory procedures.

Drynan101

Ok, I understand.

Hopefully the employer will be able to make the correct decision.

As the old saying goes "the truth will out"

MEM62

Drynan101 wrote: »

My question is what would constitute as making a witness statement void?

As you are accompanying your colleague this will not be your concern. You are there to witness the procedure - that is all. You are not there to test the evidence.

Undervalued

MEM62 wrote: »

As you are accompanying your colleague this will not be your concern. You are there to witness the procedure - that is all. You are not there to test the evidence.

The ACAS guidelines say that the accompanying persons should be allowed to ask questions etc on the employee's behalf. Although they are now only guidelines, it would not be good practice to refuse this former statutory right.

ohreally

MEM62 wrote: »

As you are accompanying your colleague this will not be your concern. You are there to witness the procedure - that is all. You are not there to test the evidence.

The colleague isn't there as a silent onlooker/ notetaker, they cannot however answer for the individual they are accompanying.

ohreally

the role of the companion...


the companion can address the hearing and confer with the worker during the hearing. They can also:

• put the worker’s case;

• rephrase the employer’s questions or statements to the worker. This may happen, for example, if there is a misunderstanding, or if the matter is of more importance than is immediately apparent, so that the employee has a fair chance to understand the significance of what is being asked or said;

• suggest an adjournment;

• sum up the worker’s case; and

• respond on the worker’s behalf to any view expressed at the hearing.

however, a companion cannot answer questions on behalf of the worker that are directed at the worker. They cannot address the hearing if the worker does not want them to, or prevent the employer from explaining their case. Nor can they prevent any other person at the hearing from making a contribution.

..........


Undervalued

Indeed.

However, keep in mind these are now only guidelines and not a statutory right.

An employer may still be able to conduct a fair process without following some or all of the guidelines.