Manager lying in order to Dismiss me

LannieDuck

Best wishes for today. Hope it went ok.

Paton147

The update.

I had the meeting and thankfully I can confirm that the element relating to the conviction has been dropped. HR have confirmed I had no obligation to disclose. I challenged why at that point I simply wasnt invited back to work and that instead, the allegation changed to that I was lying about a reason for leaving a previous employer. They just said they had to look over my application as a whole and spotted something else.

So the allegation regarding me lying about a reason for leaving a previous employer alludes to dismissal a few years ago. I feared they would say I gave the impression I left amicably, which is natural to do in terms of answering questions involving a previous role positively that actually ended badly. I thought they would suggest I strategically avoided speaking about the dismissal which again, I could understand to a degree.

The main point is I was categorically never asked about why I left the particular post I was dismissed from at the time of the offence, and I pointed out to my manager whom is the investigating officer that there were many questions that one would naturally asked regarding my CV... that were also not asked. I suggested that I wasnt asked why I left any particular job, or why I had changed careers early on in my working life. I pointed out that I was not asked what my agency work involved... and in a cringeworthy stand off I asked my manager if he knew what my most recent employer was... he didnt.

I did that to evidence that questions you would naturally ask were not asked and that was backed up given to this day he did not know. He remained true to the allegation and said however that I had said I left the employer I was dismissed from due to redundancy. I was shocked as it was a local authority job were reduncancy is very rare, and I also pointed out that I had placed them as a referee which would be daft given the alleged lie.

I asked to see the interview notes and there it was..... " => redundancy" poorly written in a different pen against question 1. I asked hihim why it was different handwriting and he said they both took notes and amalgamated them. I asked where his original notes were and in the somewhat heated debate I didnt get an answer. I pointed out that the second person involved in the interview didnt write reduncancy... so he must be mistaken. I asked when he added those notes in? That afternoon? Week? Could he have mistaken me for another candidate.

I then gave all 15 pieces of my evidence to support why I didnt lie and why "redundancy" was an error, him mishearing me or just a mistake when they copied over notes.....

I spoke positively about returning to the team and understanding the pressure and stress I had caused him with the investigation, but I kept reinforcing the lie is a mistake.

happyandcontented

I hope it works out well for you, it seems that you have now done all you possibly could. Good luck.

Paton147

Only problem is that should it go to the next stage of a formal disciplanary hearing, the two guys that have suspended me and then compliled the report, effective just switch roles. The investigating officer can become note taker and the note taker can be in charge of leading the disciplinary hearing. No input/attendance from HR required.

Its totally unethical and unfair. If it proceeds to a hearing, then I know Im screwed but I have said all that I can to counter this allegation. I

Tigsteroonie

Did they gave the actual interview notes still?

My employer gets us to scan them to PDF for saving. It would be obvious from the file date whether the document was originally scanned on the same day or just after the interview; or re-scanned at a later date once the annotation was added.

Paton147

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

Did they gave the actual interview notes still?

My employer gets us to scan them to PDF for saving. It would be obvious from the file date whether the document was originally scanned on the same day or just after the interview; or re-scanned at a later date once the annotation was added.

Exactly.

Ive been involved in recruitment, and at the end of interviews the whole lot was scanned and emailed to HR that week. There is a slim chance my manager retained the paperwork because he showed me a recommendation he sent to HR when I was interviewed to identify me as the prefered candidate. So maybe unfortunately, there is no paper trail of the original unedited versions being scanned and send down to central HR last year.

The one piece of evidence he showed me was his colleagues notes though!!! Not the notes he took. It was the second persons notes, with a few words added in here and there. Namely, the word "redundancy" on question 1.

I said these dont look like your notes... thats a different pen?!?!? He said he added his into the other persons notes at the end.... to have one copy for each candidate. I asked why on earth he did that instead of simply stapling both sets of independant notes together for each candidate!!! But he made excuses. I asked him for his orginal notes but he didnt answer the question.

Its so ridiculous. The only word contributed to someone elses notes for question one.. is... "redundancy"... how bloody convienient!! So the other persons extensive notes had all the rest.. just not that word... and that happened to be the only word he contributed.... :rotfl:

The notes were orginals though. I fear they were retained in our office all these months... he could just modify others to represent one set of notes for each candidate... but when the sheet is predominately someone elses notes.. with single words added here and there by him at a later date... surely thats horrdenous practice for interview note taking. There was no signature against his additional notes that appears to be shoe horned in a poor attempt to be inconspicous.

I pointed out to him that he hasnt present a record that was taken during the interview that representing me saying I was made redundant. Instead, he has one single word added to someone else notes that he freely admitted he added after the interview.... truly bizarre...

Paton147

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

Did they gave the actual interview notes still?

Yea. I had already asked him earlier in the week to bring my notes, and a couple of other individuals interviewed that day to todays meeting.

He only brought mine... but it was just one set of notes, and I recall them both taking notes. Funny how he didnt bring his notes along too, with the original 'redundancy' he claims he wrote down during the interview....

rhobtaylor

These kind of situations rarely work... many years ago I went through similar, where a line manager (clearly protecting their retirement) blatantly lied about a supervision that was started and aborted... she categorically stated it never happened when it did...

I went to the hearing and it was a foregone conclusion, but made clear that I disagreed with her version of events and felt that she had lied to protect herself and restated the date, time and location of the meeting she aborted. I made sure it was on the record... Saw her in my town about two years later... her face told the story.. pure shame.

Paton147

My brother is a manager... he says put a grievance in immediately on the basis that the investigating officer is the individual thats essentially made the allegation... and draw attension to your concerns about the poor notes that were taken in relation to the interview.

I dont know if its at least worth waiting a couple of days to see if they get cold feet about persuing this given how hard a time I gave them about the terrible note taking practices and all the conflicting evidence I provided to reinforce why saying I was made redundant was daft and illogical.