Suspended from work - no obvious reason

Cpt_Kenrow

OK. Now there is a reason.
As mentioned in original post it is a number of what were apparently minor mistakes (some of which were not sole responsibility), all of which were reported and over the period of a week. Directly after returning from sick leave.

Apparently a supervision was carried out during this time frame with no mention of any of the incidents and no prior warning was given before the suspension. I would have thought one of an employers immediate concerns would have been whether their staff were OK, but apparently not...

The letter containing the allegations does say they could add up to gross misconduct, but everything I read would not suggest any of these mistakes come close to that threshold - and are certainly not representative.

At least there is now something to pass on to the union to see if they will be any help now.

Comms69

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

OK. Now there is a reason.
As mentioned in original post it is a number of what were apparently minor mistakes (some of which were not sole responsibility), all of which were reported and over the period of a week. Directly after returning from sick leave.

Apparently a supervision was carried out during this time frame with no mention of any of the incidents and no prior warning was given before the suspension. I would have thought one of an employers immediate concerns would have been whether their staff were OK, but apparently not...

The letter containing the allegations does say they could add up to gross misconduct, but everything I read would not suggest any of these mistakes come close to that threshold - and are certainly not representative.

At least there is now something to pass on to the union to see if they will be any help now.

What do you mean by this?

Cpt_Kenrow

Comms69 wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

Well if a long serving employee suddenly made a series of uncharacteristic mistakes I would have thought the employer might have had some concerns about their welfare and asked them if they were OK?!

Comms69

Cpt_Kenrow wrote: »

Well if a long serving employee suddenly made a series of uncharacteristic mistakes I would have thought the employer might have had some concerns about their welfare and asked them if they were OK?!

Oh I see, well that's one way to look at it, but these presumably aren't mistakes on a spreadsheet, but mistakes which affect patient care? Which is probably why they're taking this route?


Obviously would need more detail to advise, but as there's a union involved theyre best placed.