Gross Misconduct Hearing

[Twin ear]

I am due to attend a disciplinary hearing April 2nd for potential Gross Misconduct.

 

I have recieved the documents my employer is going to present as evidence but one of statements from another employee are incorrect,

 

One says I knew he was claiming hours when he hadnt worked them which is incorrect

 

How can I correct this -

[Twin ear]

As it stands the only evidence they have is the following:-

 

1. An email that jokes about dates - which they are inferring confirms my collusion

2. I authorised payment for these hours - I have 120 employees and it has been previously agreed that we could sample check hence why it appears I have missed the two occassions when hours were claimed but not worked

3. The employee concerned has said in his statement I knew he was doing this - which is also incorrect -

[altobelli]

When the employee says you knew he was claiming for hours he hadn't worked, how is he claiming to know this? Is he claiming that there was a conversation, that you told him in writing, or that you somehow otherwise indicated that you knew?

 

Is the email you mention between you and the other employee - what does it say?

[Twin ear]

Hi

 

When he was interviewed aboiut the hours and it was pointed out that he hadnt worked the hours he told them it had been agreed with me that he could claim hours - there is nothing in writing apart from an email joking about dates. Yes this email is from him.

 

It starts from by boss asking jack to put dates to the classes (hours) he is claiming for and then proceeds

 

Jack forwards me the email saying Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

Which I contsrude to mean he doesnt know what to do or he is joking he is being told off

 

I then reply with I

" I will see what dates you submitted and make a list" - my intention being so he can resubmit

 

He then responds " I didnt put the dates ( like we said) but can make them up and re-send if you want me to - I had previously spoken to Jack about submitting claims on time and if rushed then a summary would suffice - I trusted this employee as he had worken for me for 6 years

 

I have replied " Yes pick a few dates and alter the rota book " - this didnt mean pick any old date it meant the dates he worked

 

It finshed there

[altobelli]

Ok, I think you will need to work hard to convince the employer that you didn't know he was claiming extra hours. You should go through the email line by line at the Disciplinary meeting, saying exactly what was meant at the time by each part. I think you need to prepare well for this meeting, the email could in my view reasonably be interpreted by the employer as suggesting that you were aware that extra hours were being claimed, or at least that something untowards was going on, so you need to be as convincing as possible as to why you advised the other employee to submit hours in the manner he did. What exactly did you mean when you asked him to 'alter the rota book'?

[Twin ear]

The rota book is a record of who took which class and Jack is very poor at updating it when he has taken a class.

 

I realise the email reads badly but I have worked with the company for nearly 23 years and never done anything remotely like this - when staff have been found putting in wrong details and I have seen it I have altered the sheet and spoken to them direct

[altobelli]

What size of sample do you use to check hours, and was the size of sample to be used agreed as part of the sampling policy?

 

Also, does the statement from the other employee mention why you would knowingly allow him to claim for hours he hasn't worked - is he suggesting you agreed to split any money made from doing this or something like that? Otherwise, what motivation is being suggested for you allowing him to claim these hours?

[Twin ear]

What size of sample do you use to check hours, and was the size of sample to be used agreed as part of the sampling policy?

 

Also, does the statement from the other employee mention why you would knowingly allow him to claim for hours he hasn't worked - is he suggesting you agreed to split any money made from doing this or something like that? Otherwise, what motivation is being suggested for you allowing him to claim these hours?

 

Hi

 

The management group agreed a 35% sampling.

 

He is saying the money claimed was to part pay for his management course. So no benefits or money to me -

[altobelli]

Thanks. Ok, the statistics aren't in your favour - with a 35% sampling rate the chances are that if there were two fraudulent claims one of them would have came up in a sample. The odds of this happening are I think around 60%, so its not overwhelming, it is conceivable that sampling wouldn't have picked up either of these claims (around 40% chance).

 

Prior to the meeting, perhaps list the factors in and against your favour. In your favour you have length of service, no previous allegations of this sort and no motivation for helping the employee to claim more hours than he worked. Against you is the allegation from the employee, the fact that statistically it is likely that one of the claims would have come up in sampling (although not significantly more than 50/50), and the email, which is open to interpretation.

 

In the meeting, you need to be prepared to remove as much doubt as possible on the email. Also, I think you should be able to request the other employee attend part of the meeting so that you can question him. The email could be viewed as suggesting collusion, but is not an initial suggestion. If collusion did take place then there must have been some prior dialogue. You need to question him as to how the idea he is alleging was first approached - get him to be exact as possible, giving times, dates, exactly what was said. If he is lying, the more speicific information he gives, the better the chance of him being caught out or of you being able to disprove what he's claiming - perhaps he'll mention dates when you actually weren't in the office, were in meetings, talking to other staff, etc. Your aim must be to disprove and discredit the allegations to the extent that the people hearing the Disciplinary cannot reasonably believe them.

[Twin ear]

Thanks. Ok, the statistics aren't in your favour - with a 35% sampling rate the chances are that if there were two fraudulent claims one of them would have came up in a sample. The odds of this happening are I think around 60%, so its not overwhelming, it is conceivable that sampling wouldn't have picked up either of these claims (around 40% chance).

 

Prior to the meeting, perhaps list the factors in and against your favour. In your favour you have length of service, no previous allegations of this sort and no motivation for helping the employee to claim more hours than he worked. Against you is the allegation from the employee, the fact that statistically it is likely that one of the claims would have come up in sampling (although not significantly more than 50/50), and the email, which is open to interpretation.

 

 

 

In the meeting, you need to be prepared to remove as much doubt as possible on the email. Also, I think you should be able to request the other employee attend part of the meeting so that you can question him. The email could be viewed as suggesting collusion, but is not an initial suggestion. If collusion did take place then there must have been some prior dialogue. You need to question him as to how the idea he is alleging was first approached - get him to be exact as possible, giving times, dates, exactly what was said. If he is lying, the more speicific information he gives, the better the chance of him being caught out or of you being able to disprove what he's claiming - perhaps he'll mention dates when you actually weren't in the office, were in meetings, talking to other staff, etc. Your aim must be to disprove and discredit the allegations to the extent that the people hearing the Disciplinary cannot reasonably believe them.

 

Many thanks for all your advice

 

I will do as you propose and let you know how it transpires

[Emmzzi]

I am unclear aboout whether you are this employee's line manager. I think the degree of personal accountability you have varies depending on if you were or not.

[Atlas01]

I'm sorry to say that is pretty catastrophic evidence against you as a start point, i tried to read it neutrally and i saw collusion of the accusation (e.g. i was on a panel considering the evidence)

 

You have your work cut out here, "I have replied " Yes pick a few dates and alter the rota book " clearly implies to me you were aware of the misconduct going off what you have written, i'd be working on both a very good explanation and that as you are clearly aware all emails are recorded you would have been insane to discuss such actions over their email system

 

i see one olive branch which is a contradiction, if you tell him you will check the dates and list them and he says i didn't make any as we discussed, why would you have said it in the first place if you had discussed it!

 

 

 

I know how you feel you intended the email and how you see it but i can't see it being jokey in any way, neither will a panel. I can actually see (and argue) the hmmmnnnn was not a joke or telling off but a "you better take a look at this" hmmmmn can mean many things

[Twin ear]

I'm sorry to say that is pretty catastrophic evidence against you as a start point, i tried to read it neutrally and i saw collusion of the accusation (e.g. i was on a panel considering the evidence)

 

You have your work cut out here, "I have replied " Yes pick a few dates and alter the rota book " clearly implies to me you were aware of the misconduct going off what you have written, i'd be working on both a very good explanation and that as you are clearly aware all emails are recorded you would have been insane to discuss such actions over their email system

 

i see one olive branch which is a contradiction, if you tell him you will check the dates and list them and he says i didn't make any as we discussed, why would you have said it in the first place if you had discussed it!

 

 

 

I know how you feel you intended the email and how you see it but i can't see it being jokey in any way, neither will a panel. I can actually see (and argue) the hmmmnnnn was not a joke or telling off but a "you better take a look at this" hmmmmn can mean many things

 

Hi

 

Yes I appreciate that the email is pretty damming but I can assure you there was no collusion.

 

You raise a good point - there does appear to be a contradiction.

[Twin ear]

I am unclear aboout whether you are this employee's line manager. I think the degree of personal accountability you have varies depending on if you were or not.

 

Yes I am his line manager