Change to reasons for suspension

[Myhop]

Following a brief discussion with the Boss where I was not informed prior what the meeting was about, no minutes were taken, I was not informed of the need to have a union representative or a colleague present, or of the potential outcome of the meeting, I was informed that I was suspended effective immediately and escorted off the premises.

 

I received official notification the following day of 2 issues that had caused this action.

 

Prior to an investigation meeting a month later, one of the issues had been dropped and 2 others added. I questioned this with my union representative and he said that this is permitted.

 

Is this not moving the goal posts to ensure that the outcome will be in the workplace's favour?

[RachelMD]

Following a brief discussion with the Boss where I was not informed prior what the meeting was about, no minutes were taken, I was not informed of the need to have a union representative or a colleague present, or of the potential outcome of the meeting, I was informed that I was suspended effective immediately and escorted off the premises.

It would seem that this was no more than an investigatory meeting, if that. As such, none of the above measures would be necessary, unless there was contractual provision that such measures should be followed. Which I doubt.

 

I received official notification the following day of 2 issues that had caused this action.

 

Prior to an investigation meeting a month later, one of the issues had been dropped and 2 others added. I questioned this with my union representative and he said that this is permitted.

 

Is this not moving the goal posts to ensure that the outcome will be in the workplace's favour?

 

Whether a change of charges is valid depends on the specific circumstances. It might be that following investigation a slightly different scenario from what was originally suspected has come to light. I think it's presumptuous to automatically claim that this chage of issues is underhand.

[Myhop]

Thank you for your reponse. However, you have demonstrated little understanding or knowledge in such matters.

 

From the workplace Discipline and Dismissal Procedures;

 

"In all cases where suspension is being considered, the member of staff should be advised to seek assistance from their Trade Union or Association."

 

"At the outset of the meeting the staff member should be informed that a serious complaint or allegation has been made and that, at the conclusion of the meeting, suspension might occur."

 

"The staff member should be given as much information, including reasons for any proposed suspension, that is deemed appropriate to the matter under discussion.."

 

...and it goes on. So please if you have little expertise in the area, as you have shown, kindly do not comment .

[postggj]

have you consulted the acas code of practice

 

its sets down minimum obligations an employer has to follow on discipline matters

 

as a rule this is how it follows but follow your own hand book

 

1/ informal meeting (fact finding) rep does not need to be in attendance

2/ if charges are to be laid then a date is set, employer has to give you and the rep at least 48 hours notice, suspension can follow and what normally happens is you are called in say a week later and a decision is given

 

suspension can be immediate if the employer considers appropriate reference intimidating witness, tampering with evidence etc

 

how long have you been employed as the lack of proceedure can have an effect if it goes to an employment tribunal

[postggj]

whether a change of charges is valid depends on the specific circumstances. It might be that following investigation a slightly different scenario from what was originally suspected has come to light. I think it's presumptuous to automatically claim that this chage of issues is underhand.

 

take my advice

 

this cagger knows employment law inside out and you would be wise to take any sugestions as gospel

[RachelMD]

Thank you for your reponse. However, you have demonstrated little understanding or knowledge in such matters.

 

From the workplace Discipline and Dismissal Procedures;

 

"In all cases where suspension is being considered, the member of staff should be advised to seek assistance from their Trade Union or Association."

 

"At the outset of the meeting the staff member should be informed that a serious complaint or allegation has been made and that, at the conclusion of the meeting, suspension might occur."

 

"The staff member should be given as much information, including reasons for any proposed suspension, that is deemed appropriate to the matter under discussion.."

 

...and it goes on. So please if you have little expertise in the area, as you have shown, kindly do not comment .

 

Actually you're right. I know nothing. I'm a charlatan. I've got away with masquerading as someone with a broad knowledge of practical employment law issues in the workplace, specialising in disciplinary and grievance matters, and you've just blown my cover.

Do you know, it's actually come as a relief that I've been outed. I'd been living a lie for so long, and it's been slowly eating away at my conscience.

Thanks for putting me straight.

 

Mods, can you delete my account forthwith. I'm nothing but a dangerous, misleading liability to any poor soul who might post here.

 

My apologies everyone. The damage I must have caused.

[RachelMD]

take my advice

 

this cagger knows employment law inside out and you would be wise to take any sugestions as gospel

An employment law Barrister by the sound of it.

Edited May 24, 2011 by RachelMD

[honeybee13]

take my advice

 

this cagger knows employment law inside out and you would be wise to take any sugestions as gospel

 

Welcome to the forum Myhop and thank you for joining us. I agree with postggj fwiw, and would add that antagonising seasoned members of the forum is not likely to get you advice.

 

Hello Rachel .

 

My best, HB

[postggj]

sear1 by any chance

no ediq me thinks:lol:

[honeybee13]

sear1 by any chance

no ediq me thinks:lol:

 

Post, you've lost me. Are you talking about SarEl maybe? Otherwise, I'm completely confused. Rachel, I hope you're not serious about deleting your account, you've only just arrived.

 

HB x

[RachelMD]

Post, you've lost me. Are you talking about SarEl maybe? Otherwise, I'm completely confused. Rachel, I hope you're not serious about deleting your account, you've only just arrived.

 

HB x

 

Yep. I'm an idiot, I know absolutely nothing, and the best thing I can do is just go away before I cause any more damage.

 

I hear Knitting World's forum is looking for a crochet expert. I might be more use there.

Bye everyone.

[Myhop]

Right, well that was not what I expected or wanted and surely it is not just me who thought the RachelMD was being offhand at best. It was doubted that there was 'contractural provision for such measures to be followed' and there actually is.

 

From what I have found out I am of the mind that if it was an investigatory meeting it would not have ended in an immediate suspension.

 

If the meeting might have ended in a suspension, I should have been told at the start.

 

Have checked ACAS and from their handbook I seem to think they say that investigations have to carried out, employees informed of the problems and employers should allow employees to be accompanied. My workplace Discipline and Dismissal procedure mirrors this.

 

I am pretty sure that I was simply asking a question and not assuming anything underhand. It was the tone of the response that caught me off guard.

 

All I wanted was either a 'Yes, they can do that' or 'No, they can't do that'

[Bigredbus]

Right, well that was not what I expected or wanted and surely it is not just me who thought the RachelMD was being offhand at best. It was doubted that there was 'contractural provision for such measures to be followed' and there actually is.

 

From what I have found out I am of the mind that if it was an investigatory meeting it would not have ended in an immediate suspension. [Wrong, I'm afraid. In case of precautionary suspension, an employer may suspend an employee pending the outcome of an investigation]

 

If the meeting might have ended in a suspension, I should have been told at the start. [That's right! Your employer should have informed you of such possibility at the beginning of your meeting]

 

Have checked ACAS and from their handbook I seem to think they say that investigations have to carried out, employees informed of the problems and employers should allow employees to be accompanied [There is no statutory right for an employee to be accompanied at a formal investigatory meeting, such a right may be allowed under an employer's own procedure]. My workplace Discipline and Dismissal procedure mirrors this.

 

I am pretty sure that I was simply asking a question and not assuming anything underhand. It was the tone of the response that caught me off guard.

 

All I wanted was either a 'Yes, they can do that' or 'No, they can't do that'

 

...

[Myhop]

Thanks for that Bigredbus

 

Do you happen to know if you can be suspended, notified officially as to the reasons for that suspension, then those reasons be changed prior to a later investigation meeting?

[honeybee13]

Thanks for that Bigredbus

 

Do you happen to know if you can be suspended, notified officially as to the reasons for that suspension, then those reasons be changed prior to a later investigation meeting?

 

Is this what's happened to you then?

 

HB

[Myhop]

Yeah, HB, it is. It has gone on for some time and everything I read gives me the impression that the Boss is stomping all over procedures, with my representation not too bothered what he does or about the time taken over this. I know it sounds soft and totally conspiracy theory-ish, but my life is on hold, my career has stagnated, I can't even volunteer to help local organisations to try and be a bit of use, so am trying to get some concrete facts to get them both with.

[teaboy2]

So lets get this straight, they first suspended you for 1 reason, now they are saying that reason does not apply and you are actually suspended for another reason?

 

If am right, point out estoppel to them in the a grievance letter, and make it clear they can not change the reason for your suspension willy nilly, and if the reason for your suspension has changed then they must start the investigatory procedures from scratch, though this doesn't mean they can not keep you on precautionary suspension. HOWEVER - That is assuming the 2nd reason was not part of the original investigatory meeting (or the result of what came to light as part of their investigations) or one of the 2 reasons for which you state in your 1st post you 'received official communication off'. If it is one of the 2 reason you received official communication off then you have no grounds for a grievance. though i admit they should have stated at the start of the meeting that you may be suspended, though a tribunal will see that as no more than a minor oversight, and if it states in the company hand book about suspensions whilst under investigation then such oversight would be irrelevant anyway.

 

On a side note, i must say that coming on here asking for employment advice and then criticizing, RachelMD as knowing nothing of employment law is totally uncalled for. Personally i believe Rachel's later posts where in a humorous context. So i find your criticism of Rachel to be nothing short of hypercritical, on your part.

 

If you were not happy with the advice Rachel gave, then perhaps before posting your criticism of her advice, you should have considered the fact that your first post was very basic and did not contain much details for Rachel to actually base her advice on. Perhaps if you stated what you had been accused off and what reasons where given, both 1st and 2nd reasons for suspension - Then you may have got the advice you were needing. So i must say that Rachel's advice based on the information provided was indeed 100% correct.

Edited May 25, 2011 by teaboy2

[mariefab]

Since you have indicated the type of answer you wanted, here it is...

'Yes, they can do that.'

If you change you mind and decide that you would like further elaboration feel free to let us know.

[Myhop]

Thanks for the replyy.

 

I was given two reasons for my suspension relating to one incident that happened that day.

 

Prior to later meeting concerned with this incident, one reason had been dropped and two more from other different incidents had been added.

 

With your other comments, as I have said I simply wanted to know if the employer could freely alter the official reasons for suspension without explanation. What I got from RachelMD was serious attitude which I felt was unwarrented and responded to as such. I was asking a valid question if they could or could not do that. She also questioned another part of my statement and she was plain, flat out wrong.

 

Re-read her original response and see if you can't understand where I am coming from.

 

Bigredbus explained how my understanding was in error on one aspect, but it was worded in a constructive way and I have no problem with that, and is an example on how to answer a question.

 

My first post was very 'basic' as my main query was, again, simply to ask if the specific reasons, delivered to my door, for a suspension can be dropped and others added as a case progresses.

 

What you mistake as criticism is a refusal to be spoken to in an inappropriate manner, more so if she actually is in the profession.

[teaboy2]

Thanks for the replyy.

 

I was given two reasons for my suspension relating to one incident that happened that day.

 

Prior to later meeting concerned with this incident, one reason had been dropped and two more from other different incidents had been added.

 

Given the above then it is clear that they have still withheld one of the 2 original reasons for your suspension and simply added 2 further charges as a result of their investigation in relation to the investigation or of new allegations that have also come to light. So they given that they have withheld 1 of the original reasons then they are indeed not doing anything wrong. However if the both original reasons had been dropped they would have had to held a new investigatory meeting regarding the new charges, though they still have to hold a meeting with you about the new charges anyway and provided you with copies of evidence relating to all charges, so i suspect they will contact you shortly to arrange a second investigatory meeting about the new charges.

 

With your other comments, as I have said I simply wanted to know if the employer could freely alter the official reasons for suspension without explanation. What I got from RachelMD was serious attitude which I felt was unwarrented and responded to as such. I was asking a valid question if they could or could not do that. She also questioned another part of my statement and she was plain, flat out wrong.

 

I see no altitude in Rachel's response at all, her response was clear, fair and constructive given the information provided, she said her self and i quote "Whether a change of charges is valid depends on the specific circumstances" which a reference to the lack of information given. I believe her use of the word "presumptuous" to be nothing more than a subtle warning to you that it would be wrong for you to take this excessively forward by claiming a such change in the reason for your suspension as being underhand (underhand in the sense of not following correct procedure when they are acting inline with the correct procedures)

Re-read her original response and see if you can't understand where I am coming from.

 

I have no need to re-read anything, i understood perfectly what Rachel was saying and she certainly did not warrant being labelled as having "little knowledge" or as being unconstructive and certainly does not warrant your claim that she responded with an attitude.

 

Bigredbus explained how my understanding was in error on one aspect, but it was worded in a constructive way and I have no problem with that, and is an example on how to answer a question.

 

So was Rachel's post, if you do not think it was worded constructively then please point out what part of her post your referring to and your reason as to why it you believe it to not be constructive. If you meaning her later posts - well when you opening criticize someone and accuse them of knowing nothing about the relevant laws, regulations and procedures, despite countless posts from Rachel in other threads being being evidence that she does indeed know what she is talking about. Then the person you accused and criticized has the right to respond, Rachel's responded with humor, in a sarcastic sense.

 

What i find to be unconstructive was you accusation of Rachel having little knowledge off employment laws, regulations and procedures. Especially when you had less than a handful of posts and you yourself where here looking for advice, and then tried to tell Rachel she was wrong by actually attempting to answer your own question for which you sought advice on - As in post 3

 

My first post was very 'basic' as my main query was, again, simply to ask if the specific reasons, delivered to my door, for a suspension can be dropped and others added as a case progresses.

 

Yes but asking a specific question in regards to laws, regulations and procedures without giving details as to the circumstances, makes it impossible to answer such specific with a specific answer, hence, no doubt, why Rachel made reference to it depending on specific circumstances.

 

What you mistake as criticism is a refusal to be spoken to in an inappropriate manner, more so if she actually is in the profession.

 

Sorry, but i am not mistaken at all as to your criticism of Rachel. The way i see it, is that she gave you an answer that was not what you wanted to hear nor was it inline with what you had read up on about Disciplinary procedures, which do not actually come into effect until the investigation has been completed - which is when they will decide whether to discipline you or not. So your refusal to be spoken to in such way, on the unjustified believe that Rachel had answered you inappropriately is the only real show of altitude and misappropriate mannerism here. Rachels response after your post (post 3) was nothing more than a consequence of your own doing.

 

I do not intend to offend you with anything i have said and i am not prejuging you but simply stating it as how i see it - Plus i would very much prefer to help you with the issues your facings. But i will not sit idly by and allow an other experience member of GAG who's advice has proven not only to help others but also to have been accurate and invaluable to people seeking advice in dealing with their problems, to be the victim of unjustified comments and accusations.

 

Anyway, all that aside, the main question here is - Did you actually do any the things they are accusing you off and if so what are the accusation? Without knowing that, we won't be able to do much to help you.

Edited May 25, 2011 by teaboy2

[Myhop]

Right. Thanks for the experience. Some of this has been helpful - Bigredbus, Teaboy2 - some less so.

 

Yes, I have been involved in the incidents, but it has been the way that the events have been presented that paints a totally negative picture. The getting on for 8 months with one investigation meeting and nothing else is causing me to look at forums like this to try and build some hope for the future.

 

As for things that have been written and the interpretations, I don't text when something important has to be said because the written word is open to different interpretations. It is - or at least I occasionally find it - difficult to sometimes pick out tone, nuance, meaning to what has been written down. Yes, I could be mistaken as to the way RachelMD responded. All I can say is that I am entitled to my opinion.

 

I am disappointed at her reaction but I dare say she will return to her flock soon.

 

Thanks again as I have has some help.

[teaboy2]

You mean to say you have been on suspension for 8 months?

 

If so then why on earth didn't you say so before as that changes everything. As such a period of time is way beyond excessive, and its time to put in a grievance about it.

[honeybee13]

Myhelp, at the risk of sounding 100 years old and as I've said before, taking this sort of attitude is not going to get you as much help as you will receive if you try to accept advice. I don't know what sort of forum you're used to, but here we listen to other people's views even if we disagree with them. Slinging out insults will result in potential advisers switching off. You may be p***ed off with your employer, but there's no point taking it out on contributors to this forum.

 

Rachel is one of my CAG friends and the rest of us on the forum who've been around for a while respect what she says, even if sometimes there is a debate about how best to tackle someone's problem.

 

Please try to lighten up and you'll get more constructive replies.

 

My best, HB

[michael2004]

the company can do what ever it wants (well so it seems) The same thing happen to the wife she has been off suspended for 10 weeks. She put in a grievance about the investigation among other things they upheld part of her grievance but her suspension has still not been lifted(well it has but never in writing so not back to work until they send it out to her in writing)play them at there own game she getting paid why waiting

 

There excuse will be during the first investigation meeting things came to light that led them to drop part of the alleged offense but u admitted to other offenses or they came to light.

 

You best speak to a solicitor as one told me they can do what they want but it don't make it legal. The more things they do wrong is better for you when you go to tribunal.

[Atlas01]

This thread has just reminded me why i took a 7 grand pay cut and retired from my job as a full time officer 2 months ago to the extent the only employment advice i undertake these days is on the tinternet, At work on a daily basis now i tell someone "sorry i'm retired" because many of the people i sweated blood for had the same negative attitude you showed someone trying to help in your first response

 

In addition i've just managed to set my bed on fire (i thought smoking in bed was only dangerous when you were asleep!)

 

So i as prepare for the beating the wife is going to give me when she sees the 4" hole in the bedsheet i'll offer you this advice

 

1. yes it can be changed as long as the disciplinary offence your alleged to have done warrants it, example my mrs has already suspended me from "you know what" for upsetting her the other day but would have come around today no doubt, now i have committed another disciplinary offence which also constitutes marital gross misconduct i can be investigated for that while currently under this suspension, as the evidence is very clear in my case (4" burn in the new bedsheet) the subsequent investigation won't take long so i'm concentrating soley on mitigation now.. (a tenuous analogy i know but it fits)

 

2. I've dealt with many people who thought the best thing to do with my advice was to tell me i didn't know what i was doing and that i should keep out of the way and let someone who did deal with it. I still have a job, they don't in the main (or they have warnings they told me were not applicable and would not be given), without trying to sound cocky nobody ever proved me wrong. The moral of this is not only did i grant their request which actually hindered their chances but their attitude really went against them when they were in any investigation or disciplinary with their employer

 

For your own sake take a step back and don't let the emotion your facing undermine the help you may need , if you turn the people who are willing to help you against you what chance do you think you will have with your employer who certainly doesn't!!

 

 

Everyone here who frenquents the forum to advice (not because they have an issue) has rhino skin as we have all know the kung fu that is employment advice, biting the hand that feeds you will only end in your own misery in the long run.

 

Speaking of running i hear footsteps coming up the stairs ........... gulp

 

Chill