Suspension of sick pay

Nual

All allegations were overturned at disciplinary hearing

Nual

All the allegations against him were overturned at a disciplinary hearing. Can you explain what you mean by the repercussions if HR have got it wrong?

Nual

So sangie are you an HR employee? Your posts seem very anti employee and pro organisation

IAmWales

Nual wrote: »

So sangie are you an HR employee? Your posts seem very anti employee and pro organisation

Pretty certain sangie is a trade unionist, your interpretation couldn't be more wrong!

If you wish to take this further, you need to demonstrate a link between the protected disclosure (if this is what you made) and your disciplinary. Further, you need to demonstrate that the disciplinary was not a reasonable course of action given the information the employer had re your activities.

Good luck with that.

TELLIT01

Nual wrote: »

All the allegations against him were overturned at a disciplinary hearing.

The allegations weren't overturned, the disciplinary hearing decided in his favour after assessing all the evidence. That is a totally different thing.
The process would not have got as far as a disciplinary hearing if it had not been thought at the time that there was a case to answer.

RichardD1970

Nual wrote: »

So sangie are you an HR employee? Your posts seem very anti employee and pro organisation

Sangie is a Unite Union official (AFAIA).

I think it is more the current legislation that is anti employee/pro organisation rather than Sangie, and as Sangie will give their interpretation/experience of that legislation, (un-sugar coated ), that is how they may come across.

sangie595

Nual wrote: »

So sangie are you an HR employee? Your posts seem very anti employee and pro organisation

The purpose of a disciplinary hearing is to hear allegations and determine their validity. That is exactly what happened. So the system worked. The fact that your appear not to like that fact (which is odd, since you say your friend wasn't guilty, and that was the outcome!) is irrelevant. You cannot sue an employer for following a legal process and getting the answer right! And being overworked is the nature of life these days. If you can find a law against it, please do let us know, because I'm sure there'd be a lot of interest in that law.

Don't ask for advice and then insult the people who give it. You want to pay for the advice, have at it, instead of depending on a free forum. But we spend our time for free, so if you don't like the advice, pay for it - don't insult people just because you don't like it. When you are writing the law, let us know. Until then you'll have to live with what the law actually says.

Nual

Apologies if you felt insulted Sangie, that wasn't my intention. I understand where you are coming from, the legislation is certainly pro employer. Others I spoke to, including Unison reps, also said he had no chance of winning the hearing.

The process should never have been started and was driven by people new in post and keen to impress a newly established anti fraud section with strong connections to the executive team, plus a very weak line manager who is out of his depth but was appointed because he will not challenge anything with senior management.

I just hate the way so much in time and energy and resources is expended on pointless things, not to mention the effect on someones health and wellbeing.

FBaby

What were the 6 allegations if the only issue was him going on social events whilst off sick? Or were each allegations relating to one event?

I don't know why you are responding so defensively to what has happened. There are different levels of stress with different impact on one's ability to function. Stress alone doesn't mean much, as some many people continue to work feeling very stressed. It is therefore reasonable to question why someone too stressed to go to work could cope with a social life that someone under major stress would struggle with. All they did was investigate, which was reasonable under the circumstances, but then decided that his case was genuine (or at least couldn't prove otherwise), so where was the wrong doing.

If he can't cope with the job, even the reduced level one but his time off has shown that he is fine with his life outside of his job, surely the solution is to look for another job?

I just hate the way so much in time and energy and resources is expended on pointless things, not to mention the effect on someones health and wellbeing.

I think only you and your friend saw it as pointless, the organisation and most tax payers would disagree.