Suspended for gross misconduct

[teethgrinder]

Basically, I set up my work outlook to auto-forward personal e-mails whilst on holiday to my personal e-mail account. What seems to have happened is that every e-mail I received outlook tried to forward.

This was picked up by the external company we use as out IT supplier, and I was called into a meeting with HR and my line manager. I was told that this was against company policy and that I was being suspended on full pay for gross misconduct, as it could affect client confidentiality.

The issue I have is that none of the e-mails alleged to have been sent (either personal or work-related) were received by my personal e-mail account, and they were also never in my work e-mail sent folder of outlook!

I have e-mailed Google to try to get logs on my g-mail messages, but not hopeful on this.

Was suspended on friday 1200, and told the allegetions and evidence would be sent as a hard copy to my address (not arrived yet). Then I would be called in to a hearing with the section director. Was also told I could have either 1 work colleague or union rep (not in a union) present, with no contact with any work colleagues (or at least mentioning the situation to them).

Is there anything you can suggest?

Is there a time limit on suspension on full pay?

Is there a time limit on them getting the 'evidence' to me?

Is it worth turning up with a solicitor?

Is it worth recording (overtly or covertly) the hearing?

Thanks,

TG

[Lula]

Do you have a company policy handbook, what does this say about this? I would say that the company IT dept stopped the forwarding of the mails. Apart from that, someone who is more expert at employment will be along to advise you.

[teethgrinder]

Do you have a company policy handbook, what does this say about this? I would say that the company IT dept stopped the forwarding of the mails. Apart from that, someone who is more expert at employment will be along to advise you.

 

That's the point - I never received any auto-forward e-mails, either personal or work-related. If I had received WR ones, I would have stopped doing it asap, as I don't want to work outside my hours, and even if I did, I wouldn't get paid for it!

 

There is something in the company handbook (I was told in the meeting), though I lost mine in a house fire and I don't know if there is a copy on the network.

[Lula]

ok, you need to ask for another one, they cannot refuse you.

 

Also, playing devils advocate here, when you set up the mail forwarding, how are you able to forward personal emails and work related ones?

[teethgrinder]

ok, you need to ask for another one, they cannot refuse you.

 

Also, playing devils advocate here, when you set up the mail forwarding, how are you able to forward personal emails and work related ones?

 

In outlook...Tools, Rules and Alerts, New Rule, Start from Blank Rule...

 

All I wanted was for personal e-mails to be forwarded to personal e-mail when on holiday etc...however nothing at all was ever forwarded to my account!

[elche]

 

1) Is there a time limit on suspension on full pay?

2) Is there a time limit on them getting the 'evidence' to me?

3) Is it worth turning up with a solicitor?

4) Is it worth recording (overtly or covertly) the hearing?

 

Sorry no time to properly answer your whole issue now. But in answer to the above questions:

 

1 No - ACAS advise any investigation / disc process be completed w/o undue delay

2) No - but ET's have rulled you must have at least 48 hours notice of any disc hearing and they must disclose doc's they intend to rely on

3) No legal right to a sol (TU rep or work colleague). If they allow a sol (which they prob won't) then take one

4) Yes ask if you can record the meeting - no need to do it covertly

Edited August 26, 2008 by elche
semantics

[corny90]

Basically, I set up my work outlook to auto-forward personal e-mails whilst on holiday to my personal e-mail account. What seems to have happened is that every e-mail I received outlook tried to forward.

 

This was picked up by the external company we use as out IT supplier, and I was called into a meeting with HR and my line manager. I was told that this was against company policy and that I was being suspended on full pay for gross misconduct, as it could affect client confidentiality.

 

The issue I have is that none of the e-mails alleged to have been sent (either personal or work-related) were received by my personal e-mail account, and they were also never in my work e-mail sent folder of outlook!

 

I have e-mailed Google to try to get logs on my g-mail messages, but not hopeful on this.

 

Was suspended on friday 1200, and told the allegetions and evidence would be sent as a hard copy to my address (not arrived yet). Then I would be called in to a hearing with the section director. Was also told I could have either 1 work colleague or union rep (not in a union) present, with no contact with any work colleagues (or at least mentioning the situation to them).

 

Is there anything you can suggest?

 

Is there a time limit on suspension on full pay?

Is there a time limit on them getting the 'evidence' to me?

Is it worth turning up with a solicitor?

Is it worth recording (overtly or covertly) the hearing?

 

Thanks,

TG

 

I have been suspended on full pay for 8 months and my initial grievance was upheld. SO if they think that you have done something wrong then you could be at home for ever:-|

[littlebea]

for me it has been 18 weeks! and they have not even booked me in for an investigatory interview yet - i have stuck 2 fingers up at them and resigned so i can move on although the reference situation looks screwed :-|

[teethgrinder]

Can I SAR my employer for all docs (electronic and paper) relating, written or containing my name?

[letshelp]

Hi Teethgrinder,

My sister has just sent a SAR to her employer, don't forget to ask if there is a fee for supplying the required info, maximum charge £10.

regards

[elche]

for me it has been 18 weeks!

 

Whilst I did say earlier that there was no time limit on suspension a lengthy suspension on full pay could enable an employee to claim construcutive dismissal - but CD is difficult to prove so this route should not be taken w/o personal face 2 face advice first.

[patdavies]

 

with no contact with any work colleagues (or at least mentioning the situation to them).

 

 

 

This can only be enforced by the company during working hours. You have a legal right to free association and your company cannot remove that.

 

Also, if you are not allowed to contact any work colleagues, how are you

a) supposed to invite a colleague to attend with you;

b) carry out any investigation/witness statements in your defence.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

3) No legal right to a sol (TU rep or work colleague). If they allow a sol (which they prob won't) then take one

 

Not strictly true. Depends on the charge at work and whether or not the police are involved.

 

Anybody would be allowed legal representation in a situation such as this even at work.

 

However, in this particular situation maybe the OP could tell us what the specific transgression is?

 

ie Could this be construed as a breach of the Official Secrets Act for example? If the OP works for a Governmental Dept then it would almost certainly be and a criminal offence, alleged of course.

But it would mean the OP could have legal representation.

 

We need to know how sensitive the employment is. It appears it could be.

[teethgrinder]

Business is pharma - I fully understand that confidentiality is paramount in this industry.

 

However, the 'evidence' they supplied states that none of the auto-forwarded e-mails (either personal or work related) left the company servers. They then state that it would be difficult to ascertain whether I sent anything confidential off site manually. Surely they would actually want to check to make sure I did ( or didn't!) and what it was?

 

There's also a very prejudicial letter from my line manager who interviewed me at the time - personally I believe this has overtones of prejudicing the hearing with one of the directors tomorrow. Also undertones of constructive dismissal by bringing up trust.

 

The worst bit is I know of other people who manually sent stuff home to work on, as well as taking hard copies - against the company handbook policies.

 

A friend of my Fatha is a corporate lawyer and she's having a look at my response to the allegations, and their evidence, tonight!

[elche]

Not strictly true. Depends on the charge at work and whether or not the police are involved.

 

Anybody would be allowed legal representation in a situation such as this ... at work

 

Wrong

 

There is no legal right to a solicitor in any disciplinary proceedings at work. If the police are involved then it is not a work bassed disciplinary process, it is a criminal investigation.

Edited August 31, 2008 by elche

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Wrong

 

There is no legal right to a solicitor in any disciplinary proceedings at work. If the police are involved then it is not a work bassed disciplinary process, it is a criminal investigation (of a work based allegation!).

 

Incorrect.

 

One can be 'suspended (from work) pending a police investigation,' such as an allegation of theft whilst at work. Just like with my employers and thousands more.

 

Suspension from work is a work based disciplinary procedure yet the individual in this circumstance has every right to legal representation as they will be subject to police questioning from allegations made by the employer.

 

This scenario is not seperated as the process will obviously involve the employee and the employer and any good employer would abide by the police findings, though they are not bound by it.

 

Hence, the employee would have been allowed legal representation for a work based disciplinary and allegation.

 

In any case, an employee is free to consult a solicitor outside of work for any matter alleged against them before the actual disciplinary meeting and to take the notes to that meeting the solicitor may give them.

 

This is a 'representation of views' of that solicitor, though not in person, and is fully valid.

 

Just like the employer may have sought legal advice before the disciplinary of the employee, which is not unusual.

 

It has to be a level playing field.

[elche]

Incorrect.

 

One can be 'suspended (from work) pending a police investigation,' such as an allegation of theft whilst at work.

 

I still disagree., and it is you mr Yankovic who is wrong

 

One is a workplace dispute the other a quite distinct and seperate criminal investigation. The fact they may stem from the same incident is irrelevant.

 

You would have no 'legal right' to a solicitor in a workplace investigation because your boss cannot impose any criminal sanction.

 

Find a single statutory provision that specifically provides for an employee to have a legal right for a solicitor to be present in a workplace disciplinary meeting, post it here, and I will amend my stance accordingly.

[letshelp]

 

Suspension from work is a work based disciplinary procedure yet the individual in this circumstance has every right to legal representation as they will be subject to police questioning from allegations made by the employer.

Correct

 

Hence, the employee would have been allowed legal representation for a work based disciplinary and allegation.

Correct

 

In any case, an employee is free to consult a solicitor outside of work for any matter alleged against them before the actual disciplinary meeting and to take the notes to that meeting the solicitor may give them.

correct

 

This is a 'representation of views' of that solicitor, though not in person, and is fully valid.

 

Just like the employer may have sought legal advice before the disciplinary of the employee, which is not unusual.

 

It has to be a level playing field.

It would appear that there is a misunderstanding taking place here, I don't think Weird Al is saying that an employee has a right to legal representation whilst actually at work.

Elche whilst as you know I respect your views, I think you are missing Weird Al's point as mentioned above.

regards

[elche]

I don't think Weird Al is saying that an employee has a right to legal representation whilst actually at work.

 

Ok perhaps I was being a bit pedantic. My point was purely that it is not good to get employee's in a mindset that they can take a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing as this is simply not true.

 

Whilst a contract / handbook may allow this or a good employer may permit this this is the exception not the rule.

 

And to avoid any confusion I have located the following which actually makes my point for me:

 

'That s10 –15 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERA) brought new rights for employees to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance hearings and also detailed the rights for the representative

as well.

 

S10(1)(a) ERA states that the right applies when the “worker is required or

invited by his employer to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing” and

s10(1)(b) states when the worker “reasonably requests to be accompanied at the hearing” Note that the right does not confer when the worker initiates the meeting themselves.

 

By virtue of s10(2)(a) ERA, the worker must be free to choose whom they want and not the employer. The companion must be either:

 

1. An employed member of a trade union or,

2. alay-official of a trade union, certified as being sufficiently trained and

competent to accompany a worker or,

3. another of the employer’s workers.

 

The worker is not entitled to bring someone other then a fellow worker or trade union official. Hence why you cannot bring your friendly lawyer, if such a creature exists, along with you.'

 

Although I can confirm friendly lawyers do exist - although I don't know many.

 

Oh and I will add that the original statement from Big Al that started this was that 'It was not strictly true' when i said you were not allowed a sol at a workplace disc hearing.

 

I'm sorry Big Al, in light of the above I fail to see what part of my original statement was 'Not strictly true'

Edited August 31, 2008 by elche

[teethgrinder]

Well,

I did get 2 hours of free advice from a friendly corporate lawyer/HR boss-woman my parents know - She thinks that there is no case to answer, and that the report from my line manager, a copy of which was sent to me, is actually prejudicial to the outcome of my hearing tomorrow...nice to have an impartial view backing me up.

 

I have looked through all the 'evidence' supplied to me and basically shot holes in nearly every paragraph, and it has got me so worked up that when (if) I retain my job tomorrow, I will raise grievances against at least 2 of the people involved.

 

I'll let you all know tomorrow what happens!

[elche]

I have looked through all the 'evidence' supplied to me and basically shot holes in nearly every paragraph, and it has got me so worked up

 

Glad to hear their evidence is flawed.

 

Try and be calm tomorrow - don't give them the satisfaction of knowing they've annoyed you.

 

I could be wrong as the thread has become a little distracted but if you haven't already pls post your length of service with your current employer when you tell us how the meeting went.

 

Good luck

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Ok perhaps I was being a bit pedantic. My point was purely that it is not good to get employee's in a mindset that they can take a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing as this is simply not true.

 

By virtue of s10(2)(a) ERA, the worker must be free to choose whom they want and not the employer. The companion must be either:

 

1. An employed member of a trade union or,

2. alay-official of a trade union, certified as being sufficiently trained and

competent to accompany a worker or,

3. another of the employer’s workers.

 

 

An employed member of a trade union could actually be an employed lawyer of that trade union. Most unions have a legal department.

 

And I have previously mentioned in my first post 'it depends on the charge.'

 

A disciplinary for lateness would probably justify alay-official attending.

 

A disciplinary for a serious fraud by an employee who works in accounts would be better served by...a fully qualified legal rep from the union's lawyers.

 

For your info I myself was represented at a disciplinary hearing by a CWU lawyer as Royal Mail had stitched me up and our region were contemplating strike action over it.

 

Humble Pie anyone?

[elche]

Humble Pie anyone?

 

No thanks not hungry. I think you need to look at what I said not what you think i said.

 

The original comment was 'No legal right to a sol (TU rep or work colleague).'

 

A legal right means a specific statutory provision.

 

As you know the right also applies to a work colleague.Thus if you work in a solicitors you may end up having a sol present in a dsic hearing.

 

The right for them to be there stems from the fact that they are my colleague not the fact they are a solicitor. Thus even though I end up having a sol present at my hearing I had no legal right for them to be there in that capacity. The legal right was for a work colleague.

 

Thus the original comment that there is 'no legal right to a sol' is entirely correct.

 

And furthermore if we look behind the intention of Parliament it is quite clear it was never intended to apply to a solicitor:

 

The companion’s role is set out in S.10(2)(b) and ©. He or she is to be permitted to:

 

• address the hearing but not to answer questions on behalf of the worker, and
  
• confer with the worker during the hearing.
  

The companion’s role appears to be fairly limited. It was Parliament’s intention that the companion should advise and support the worker instead of intervening between the employer and the worker. This is probably the reason why the legislature chose the word ‘companion’ instead of ‘representative’.

 

 

I'm afraid I won't be needing your pie.

Edited September 1, 2008 by elche

[Weird Al Yankovic]

What a load of fluff.

[elche]

I'll accept that then, as an acknowledgment that I was right.

 

Hope the pie's nice!

 

Edited September 1, 2008 by elche