Suspended From Work - Do I have to stay at Home ?

[Millbrookblue]

I am suspended from work whilst a disciplinary investigation is ongoing for allegations that I am hotly disputing.

 

I have been told I must always be available to attend work but is it fair that I should be expected to stay at home ? After all , I think they are wrong , I want to be in work and they have sent me home and worse still got a temp in to do my job .

 

Do I have to be at home all week or is it reasonable for me to go and see my mum for a few days ? They have said I will get written notice of the next stage .

 

Advice much appreciated .

[godpikachu]

your employer has no right whatsoever to tell you what you can and cant do while you are not "on the clock" as it were.

 

if they want you to be available for work then they should contact you to tell you a date when you can return to work, but up until they are ready to do that its completley up to you what you do.

 

while suspended they should give you written notice of when your hearing will be, it is not sufficient for them to simply ring you up and say "be here in 5 minutes", as you should be allowed to prepare your defence, organise a witness for the day etc etc. it doesnt matter who they think they are or how big a company they are, the legal system of great britain will always be bigger.

[Millbrookblue]

I appreciate your quick response godpikachu.

 

I am absolutely stressed out with what is going on at the moment and really could do with a break for several days at my mum's. She has offered to put me up although she lives abroad.

 

Do you think I am:

a) obliged to inform my employers that I am going away although they have not been in touch since the investigatory meeting a fortnight ago, and

b) could they discipline me further if they realised that I had gone away without notifying them and that I was unable to attend a hearing for four to six days.

 

Appreciate all help!!

[godpikachu]

Do you think I am:

a) obliged to inform my employers that I am going away although they have not been in touch since the investigatory meeting a fortnight ago, and....

 

i would call them and ask if they have decided on a date for your hearing yet, if they ask, tell them that you may not be available for X days due to personal commitments.

 

b) could they discipline me further if they realised that I had gone away without notifying them and that I was unable to attend a hearing for four to six days.

 

Appreciate all help!!

 

like i said, what you do when not at work is none of their business whatsoever and they have no right attempting to discipline you for your activities outside of work.

 

i would presume they hae a mobile number to contact you on, if they dont, ring them up, as if they have decided on a date for the hearing, if they havent, then give them the mobile number to contact you, state that you wont be available for X days starting on the Xth of whatever due to a family commitment, then hang up, pack a bag and get away from it all for a couple of days.

 

your employer doesnt own you, if you are suspended form work pending an investigation thats fine, they dont want you in the work place, then dont worry about it.

[Millbrookblue]

Many thanks for your information. I have taken onboard what you have said although I still have a couple of queries.

 

QUOTE "they have no right attempting to discipline you for your activities outside of work." - although it would be during normal working hours? In my information it says I must keep myself available at all times and attend meetings at short notice. I'm also on full pay whilst on suspension!

Can they decide to take these few days out of my annual leave even though I'm suspended by them?

[godpikachu]

Many thanks for your information. I have taken onboard what you have said although I still have a couple of queries.

 

QUOTE "they have no right attempting to discipline you for your activities outside of work." - although it would be during normal working hours? In my information it says I must keep myself available at all times and attend meetings at short notice. I'm also on full pay whilst on suspension!

 

 

Hence why i said to call and ask them if they have decided on a date yet.

A formal discaplinary hearing should be communicated to you in writing, as i said, they cannot just expect you to drop what you are doing and come, as it does not allow you to be able organise a witness to go with you etc.

Can they decide to take these few days out of my annual leave even though I'm suspended by them?

 

thats up to you.

if you are on suspension, then it means your employer doesnt want you in work, even though you are on paid suspension, it still means you are at liberty to do whatever the hell you want until your employer specifies that they want to see you.

 

If this matter was of the utmost importance to them, you wouldnt have been off for nearly a week like you said you had earlier, it would have been sorted as quickly as possible.

they have already said they will confirm the next stage in writing, which i presume means they will write to you telling you the date of your hearing etc. Like i said, it wont hurt to ask them if they have decided on a date yet so oyu can plan things out more clearly.

[Millbrookblue]

Thank you for all of your help godpikachu. It's much appreciated.

[ErikaPNP]

The only possible issue which could arise is if they write to you at your home address whilst you are away. If you are not there to receive a letter which tells you of the date of the next meeting and fail to appear, that could cause problems.

 

So as godpikachu says, explain you have family commitments and ask them to call you on a number you will be contactable at if you are required to attend your workplace within X amount of days.

[weedalli]

Agree with the above, I was suspended from work on full pay, I had arranged to go to my sons for a few days to get away from the stress. My company phoned me and said they had arranged a meeting in 2 days time, I sort of thought it had to be by mutal arrangement, but was told because they were paying me they more or less called the shots, so I cancelled my arrangements.

I now have a solicitor on my case and I asked him about this, he told me they have no right to demand a meeting which is not convenient for me and another date should have been made so don't let them put a guilt trip on you, get away for a few days and it always helps to talk things over with mum.

[chesham]

your employer has no right whatsoever to tell you what you can and cant do while you are not "on the clock" as it were.

 

But you are still an employee and therefore bound by any terms and conditions of your contract. People can be suspended and still bring the company into disrepute and therefore create further problems.

 

However, I would ring ACAS and ask for them to advise -they'll tell you straight and you can go from there. In addition, any correspondence or advise from ACAS is normally binding and respected by companies and therefore can prevent you from worrying unnecessarily and to let you know where you stand which, unfortunately, many companies do not do.

[godpikachu]

But you are still an employee and therefore bound by any terms and conditions of your contract. People can be suspended and still bring the company into disrepute and therefore create further problems.

 

 

..and how may i ask can he do this?.

the ONLY way that he can bring the company into disrepute would be if while in uniform, or by carrying a sign with the company name and address on it, he did something that would consistute bringing the company down.

 

At NO time can your employer dictate your movements, actions or whereaouts while you are not on work premises, on work business, or as a designated reparesentative of the company in some capacity, irrespective of what is contained in your employment contract.

This is a basic human right and unless your employer can show the respective legal statute or regulation which allows them to interfere in someones life outside of work then they have no business trying to do so.

[p_cas]

I think the point being made by chesham is that, although suspended, the OP is still an employee and subject to everything in his or her contract.

 

And, yes, the OP poster could all too easily bring the company in to disrepute whilst off work due to suspension or any other reason - think about if he/she wrote derogatory things about the company on this Forum or on Facebook etc.

 

It would only be polite to ask if it was ok to go away for a while whilst being paid by the company. Being confrontational and awkward (and quoting the Human Rights Act) will probably do you no favours at all.

[chesham]

..and how may i ask can he do this?.

 

Pay vs Lancashire Probation Services

 

In a few ways - Pay vs Lancashire Probation Services created case law, as it was found that his interest in S&M was incompatible with being a probation officer. Similarly, it was held in court that a Waterstones employee who was suspended and then wrote on a well known blogging site that his boss was "evil" was subsequently dismissed without the original matter being dealt with, as it was found he brought the company into disrepute.

 

Similarly, it's clearer if you are talking about police officers - even when off duty, sick or annual leave, they are still bound by their contract, as every employee is. However, dismissal would only be fair if it was found your actions conflicted with your work.

 

So the OP can bring the company into disrepute. Making comments on a blogging site is one example. Being photographed holding a beer on a beach whilst off sick is another (

 

Human rights prevail, but common sense comes first.

[godpikachu]

Pay vs Lancashire Probation Services

 

In a few ways - Pay vs Lancashire Probation Services created case law, as it was found that his interest in S&M was incompatible with being a probation officer.

 

WTF?, how did this happen?, did he come to work in a gimp mask or something?.

 

Similarly, it was held in court that a Waterstones employee who was suspended and then wrote on a well known blogging site that his boss was "evil" was subsequently dismissed without the original matter being dealt with, as it was found he brought the company into disrepute.

 

Well thats just stupid really, especially if they mentioned them by name. tha act alone does bring the company ito disrepute, so in that case it was justifiable, as it could also be viewed as slander/libel.

 

Similarly, it's clearer if you are talking about police officers - even when off duty, sick or annual leave, they are still bound by their contract, as every employee is. However, dismissal would only be fair if it was found your actions conflicted with your work.

 

yeah, police officers are usually exempt from the norm, as a police officer is expected to uphold the law at all times, irrespective of wether they are on duty or not.

 

So the OP can bring the company into disrepute. Making comments on a blogging site is one example. Being photographed holding a beer on a beach whilst off sick is another (

 

none of which they are intending to do, they were simply asking wether their employer could dictate that they had to stay at home 24/7 while they were suspended pending a disciplinary, the answer to which is no.

[Trojan1401]

I'm no expert on employment law however as the OP is suspended on full pay i.e. still employed, could he not just take annual leave ?

[chesham]

As for being involved in S&M, I think (from memory) they found links to website on his PC, and that's when it came out.

 

As for police officers being exempted, well it's not really just them - it's all employees (regardless of status) of a police force or a profession. However, just because someone works in the private sector doesn't mean they do not owe some duty to their employer...

 

As for the guy being sacked, well he placed a comment about his boss being "evil" and also renamed his workplace as "W*nkerstones". Similar events occurred with a number of Virgin Atlantic members of staff being suspended last year as well.

 

Anyhow, it's getting off track now. I just wanted to make the point that it IS possible to commit an "offence" (for want of a better word) whilst not at work. Although here the OP claims complete innocence, the truth is that very few people are suspended without any form of evidence or invalid reason - therefore, it is only fair for there to be some form of control from the employer to safeguard their commercial interest. This mirrors in some form bail conditions which criminals agree to in order to go about their business whilst the police are dealing with whatever it is that has been done. Although, granted, that is much more severe and extreme, but has some similarities.

 

Anyhow, to the OP - hope it resolves itself soon!

[godpikachu]

As for being involved in S&M, I think (from memory) they found links to website on his PC, and that's when it came out.

 

Well, i would say he didnt get the sack for simply having an interest in S&M, it was more likely because he was using works equipment to view pornographic images or post messages or whatever relating to it, this would constitute a misuse of works equipment and thus be considered to be gross misconduct.

it would be the same if a gay man was using his works pc to view gay pronography or post messages on cottaging/gay dating sites etc.

 

As for the guy being sacked, well he placed a comment about his boss being "evil" and also renamed his workplace as "W*nkerstones". Similar events occurred with a number of Virgin Atlantic members of staff being suspended last year as well.

 

yeah, because that would constitute libel against the company and thus would be gross misconduct, hence the sacking, totally justified.

[chesham]

Just checked it out. Some photographs surfaced of the defendant engaged in hardcore bondage scenes, and his employer was shown them. He was dismissed and he appealed. However, the judge in the ET upheld his dismissal, saying:

 

"The Tribunal accept that for a probation officer there must be some limitation on that person's 'freedom of expression'. … the Tribunal accept that the activities of the applicant (taken in the round) were such as to have the possibility of damaging the Probation Service and its reputation and that it is reasonable that such activities should be curbed so far as the applicant's freedom of expression is concerned."

Edited February 24, 2009 by chesham
Cannot spell!!