Disciplinary Investigation Notes bridged?

Whittard2025

Hi
I I am being investigated at work and have had my investigation meeting with the disciplinary meeting set. 

Upon receiving my notes and looking through these, I remember that after the investigation meeting finished, the interviewer replied saying to one part “your time sheets are accurate” (after being questioned about them in the meeting. 

Now this comment was made after the meeting concluded and is not on the notes, but the original question is. 

Are these notes now bridged?

Also, the meeting was opened saying they are looking at audit policies, but several of the questions did not relate to audit policies at all but members of my Team. 

Thanks

tacpot12

Do you mean abridged? Yes, they seem to have been abridged, but not in an acceptable way. I would ask for the interviewer's observation about your timesheets (and any others that confirm that something is ok) is/are included in the notes. It would not be fair to exclude them. I expect an employment tribunal would take a dim view of investigations where results that don't support the narrative are not recorded. 

Undervalued

Whittard2025 said:

Hi
I I am being investigated at work and have had my investigation meeting with the disciplinary meeting set. 

Upon receiving my notes and looking through these, I remember that after the investigation meeting finished, the interviewer replied saying to one part “your time sheets are accurate” (after being questioned about them in the meeting. 

Now this comment was made after the meeting concluded and is not on the notes, but the original question is. 

Are these notes now bridged?

Also, the meeting was opened saying they are looking at audit policies, but several of the questions did not relate to audit policies at all but members of my Team. 

Thanks

Notes / minutes of a meeting are not the same thing as a transcript so obviously not everything that was said will be recorded.

That said they should be balanced and should not deliberately leave out something relevant that the company finds "inconvenient".

However, you say that this comment was made after the meeting had been concluded? So in fact there was no answer to your question given during the meeting. Arguably therefore the notes are correct. If this point was important why did you not press for an answer during the meeting?

Had the manager, after the meeting, said your timesheets were completely wrong would you have wanted that put in the notes? It does work both ways.

Whittard2025

Thanks for the reply. 

Honestly, it was a bit of a shock I got pulled in and after 2 hours of constant questioning at the end I was drained mentally. 

During the meeting I gave answers to the timesheets and nothing else was said. After the meeting concluded they turned said they’re happy with the timesheets with what they had seen. Just strange that a ‘positive’ comment on those wasn’t made in the meeting. 

Grumpy_chap

Whittard2025 said:

Honestly, it was a bit of a shock I got pulled in and after 2 hours of constant questioning at the end I was drained mentally. 

Was this a disciplinary meeting, or simply a spot audit?

It might be worth writing to acknowledge receipt of the meeting notes, state that the meeting was carried our without any prior notice so you were unprepared, and request a "post meeting note" to be added that after the meeting concluded you received verbal feed back from XXX that the timesheets are accurate.

For a disciplinary process, there should be a statement in advance setting out what the concern is, you should have time to prepare and, often, the right to bring a Union Rep to attend.
Were you offered any of that?
Are you in a Union?

Whittard2025

It was an investigation meeting with a not taker. 

Got the letter yesterday giving me 48hrs notice for a disciplinary meeting. The letter I received stating the claims are about the audit, but some of the questioning at the original meeting wasn’t to do with the audit process. 

Not a member of a union. 

Undervalued

Whittard2025 said:

It was an investigation meeting with a not taker. 

Got the letter yesterday giving me 48hrs notice for a disciplinary meeting. The letter I received stating the claims are about the audit, but some of the questioning at the original meeting wasn’t to do with the audit process. 

Not a member of a union. 

In which case there are no rules as such and there is no requirement to allow a union rep or work colleague to accompany you.

Whittard2025

Undervalued said:

Whittard2025 said:

It was an investigation meeting with a not taker. 

Got the letter yesterday giving me 48hrs notice for a disciplinary meeting. The letter I received stating the claims are about the audit, but some of the questioning at the original meeting wasn’t to do with the audit process. 

Not a member of a union. 

In which case there are no rules as such and there is no requirement to allow a union rep or work colleague to accompany you.

Understand that the initial meeting you don’t need or have a witness there. 

It was more if the initial notes are abridged, due to the comment made by the investigator after the meeting had been concluded in relation to a question that was raised during the meeting. 

Grumpy_chap

Whittard2025 said:

Understand that the initial meeting you don’t need or have a witness there. 

It was more if the initial notes are abridged, due to the comment made by the investigator after the meeting had been concluded in relation to a question that was raised during the meeting. 

So, have you responded to acknowledge receipt of the notes and to request that the "post meeting note" is appended to record the comment made as you left the meeting?

General_Grant

If the disciplinary is said to be about the audit procedures then, if the timesheet questioning is not part of the audit to which the disciplinary relates, the timesheet matters should not be included in the disciplinary meeting.  However, acknowledging receipt of the notes and mentioning the post-meeting comment regarding time sheets would be good.