Publicly Supsended

Seanicus

Hi All,
brand new to the group so go easy on me - I'm after some advice about my recent suspension from work. Without boring you of the details/allegations (which are completely unfounded -naturally!!), I was suspended from work pending an investigation. However the concerns/questions I have for this forum are centred around the way in which it took place. I was sat in a meeting with 10 other colleagues when the CEO asked me 2 questions both of which I (truthfully) denied - then proceeded to tell me he didn't believe me and that I was suspended, pending investigation, with immediate effect. This was in front of the whole group. Furthermore, once I left, all my site managers who report in to me were contacted to be told I had been suspended.
Please let me know your thoughts on whether I have a case for constructive dismissal. Regardless of the outcome, there's no way I can feel comfortable to return there.

General_Grant

Seanicus said:

Hi All,
brand new to the group so go easy on me - I'm after some advice about my recent suspension from work. Without boring you of the details/allegations (which are completely unfounded -naturally!!), I was suspended from work pending an investigation. However the concerns/questions I have for this forum are centred around the way in which it took place. I was sat in a meeting with 10 other colleagues when the CEO asked me 2 questions both of which I (truthfully) denied - then proceeded to tell me he didn't believe me and that I was suspended, pending investigation, with immediate effect. This was in front of the whole group. Furthermore, once I left, all my site managers who report in to me were contacted to be told I had been suspended.
Please let me know your thoughts on whether I have a case for constructive dismissal. Regardless of the outcome, there's no way I can feel comfortable to return there.

You denied questions?
Were the "other colleagues" those who work with you and are at an equal or higher level in the organisation and need to know of your suspension?  Or even other colleagues who need to know?
As you have been suspended those who report to you need to know to whom they should report while the situation is investigated.

Seanicus

Hi, Sorry I wasn't clear - the 2 questions were based on my actions which he then used for reasons of suspension. Despite me denying any negative impact to the business.
The people on the conference ranged from the chairman to other depts who have no regular interaction with me.
I was under the impression that suspensions should be kept confidential, I understand that people report to someone else, but they don't need to be told the granular reasons for it??

lincroft1710

Resign and you will be seen as being guilty of the accusation(s)

theoretica

Suspension is legally a neutral act to allow investigation - just look at the number of people announced in the press to be suspended, it clearly isn't kept confidential. 

TELLIT01

I wouldn't be happy with the way it was handled either.  I would have expected the questions to be asked privately but I don't know if you have a right to be treated that way.  Keeping the fact of a suspension secret is virtually impossible within any organisation, large or small.  The reasons behind the suspension probably should not be made public, apart from to those directly involved in the investigation process.

oh_really

Nothing neutral about suspension, courts have agreed this.

74jax

Seanicus said:

Hi, Sorry I wasn't clear - the 2 questions were based on my actions which he then used for reasons of suspension. Despite me denying any negative impact to the business.
The people on the conference ranged from the chairman to other depts who have no regular interaction with me.
I was under the impression that suspensions should be kept confidential, I understand that people report to someone else, but they don't need to be told the granular reasons for it??

So you agree you did what ever they say you did. Is that correct? But you deny any negative outcome for the company. 
The things you did, which you agree you did, are these grounds for suspension (regardless if negative for the company).
I've been told of staff members suspended before, esp if I've needed to contact them. 

thebrexitunicorn

I agree that the way that the suspension has been dealt with leaves a lot to be desired.  It should not have been done publicly and staff should not have been informed of the fact that you are suspended.   I can understand why you feel you couldn’t go back. 

Potentially this could be a constructive dismissal (provided you have at least 2 years service) but before resigning you might want to seek a legal opinion from an employment law solicitor. Any claim will probably take around a year to get to hearing at tribunal.  I think a good outcome at this stage would be a settlement agreement (including agreed reference). 

Undervalued

thebrexitunicorn said:

I agree that the way that the suspension has been dealt with leaves a lot to be desired.  It should not have been done publicly and staff should not have been informed of the fact that you are suspended.   I can understand why you feel you couldn’t go back. 

Potentially this could be a constructive dismissal (provided you have at least 2 years service) but before resigning you might want to seek a legal opinion from an employment law solicitor. Any claim will probably take around a year to get to hearing at tribunal.  I think a good outcome at this stage would be a settlement agreement (including agreed reference). 

"Potentially" lots of situations could be constructive dismissal but it is a very, very hard claim to win. Less than 3% that reach a full tribunal hearing are actually won. Obviously some others are settled before getting that far, but even so think long and hard before going down that route unless you would genuinely be resigning anyway.

ratechaser

I'd be looking at this outside just employment law - if what was said was accusing you of something publicly, and that then turns out to be false, and those accusations were made without reasonable justification, then there is surely a defamation/slander angle to this?