Garden leave

[rcl]

I'm hoping someone can assist. My husband, last august, whilst at work, made a mistake on a work order card. He mentioned working at heights, instead of confined spaces. Due to the nature of the work, there was never any danger to people or equipment due to this mistake. As a result, someone higher up the ranking, threw a wobbler, and stated they didn't want him in site, and he was to get off site in 3 weeks time. No investigation, no disciplinary, just told to go home on garden leave, effective in 3 weeks time.

 

He has now been at home since September 2013. Full pay, he has asked if he is required on any other site, no, he has asked is there any training he can do, there may be, but nothing immediate. Now we see his job has been advertised, same job, same location everything.

 

Poor fella is going brain dead. It's ok taking the wage each month for doing nothing, but potentially, he is losing the skills and knowledge he did have, he is bored, his moral is low,

 

Are companies allowed to send you home on garden leave, without any investigations or disciplinary, and leave you there for 5 months, then re advertise your job? Where should be go from here?

[Emmzzi]

As long as they are paying they are not legally obliged to provide work.

How long has he worked there please?

[rcl]

He worked for the 23.5 months when he went in garden leave, now it's about 27 months, on a full time permanent contract. In addition to this, he studied for a hnc which they paid for, and was completed last May. When they paid for it, they asked him to sign a learning contract which states if he left their employment within. 2 years of completing the course, he would pay the cost of the course back to them, and they also guaranteed to keep him employed for 2years from completion of the course. So he has a full time permanent contract, and the learning contract

[Emmzzi]

So he hits the magic 2 years for employment rights.

 

They would need to take him through a formal procedure to dismiss.

 

The contract sounds odd to me; guaranteed to employ for 2 years? With no caveats? Can we have the exact wording please?

[rcl]

So he hits the magic 2 years for employment rights.

 

They would need to take him through a formal procedure to dismiss.

 

The contract sounds odd to me; guaranteed to employ for 2 years? With no caveats? Can we have the exact wording please?

 

Yes, definitely over 2 years employment. I think they would struggle to dismiss him over it now with no investigation or disciplinary in the 5 months since the event, plus I didn't think it could be classed as gross misconduct as they allowed him to work on site for an additional 3 weeks after the incident. He has a clear record as far as disciplinarians are concerned, and all his personal development reviews have been above target.

 

We spoke to acas, who said he was allowed to be on garden leave for a reasonable amount of time, but couldn't define what reasonable was. It doesn't look like they want him back there if they are advertising the same job

 

I'll ask him if eh has a copy of the learning contract at home

[Emmzzi]

It's a most odd situation!

 

I assume he is not in a union?

[rcl]

Yes, unite. He was reluctant to contact them before now, for fear of being branded a trouble maker, but I think we have left it long enough, and need to call them on Monday

[Emmzzi]

I would be hoping a rep could broker a conversation between him and his employer.

 

You do need to be aware this may bring things to a head and the outcome may not be what you would wish.

[rcl]

This is the confusion. Could they still sack him for gross misconduct?

[Emmzzi]

If what he did was GMC, yes. Depends on the relative views of the incident - he says not dangerous, they say not following procedure, etc.

 

Seems unlikely but a possibility.

[rcl]

Ok thanks

[caro]

If what he did was GMC, yes. Depends on the relative views of the incident - he says not dangerous, they say not following procedure, etc.

 

Seems unlikely but a possibility.

 

Surely if it was GMC he wouldn't have been allowed to work for 3 weeks, especially if safety was an issue. Procedures are obviously important so I can understand there being an issue if it was wrong (I'm not saying it was or wasn't), but as has been said this seems odd and I'm trying to see the logic.

[rcl]

On site, if anything has been done, or not done according to procedure, then a report known as a critical risk is logged. This could be anything from someone spilling something, and not barrier-ing it off, and getting it cleaned up, to someone who doesn't have security clearance not being escorted (even to go to the toilet), to someone not following procedure, using the wrong tools/equipment. In the instance with my husband and the work order card, no CR was raised, which I presume means there was no risk deemed.

 

Due to their being no CR raised, no investigation, no disciplinary, I personally think they would struggle with the GMC route at this late stage. It's doesn't mean they won't try, but we can prove they haven't followed their own every day procedures, and disciplinary procedures. Yes, he was allowed to work on site for another 3 weeks, before going on garden leave. He was given 3 weeks notice, basically told, as from 13th September, you are not wanted on site.

 

He was them told that a training package would be put together, authorised by site, and once the additional training was done, he would be allowed back on site

 

At the end of October, he was told by head office that they were waiting to the guy who initially threw a wobbler, to authorise the training package that had been out together. As far as we know, they are still waiting for that authorisation.

 

In December, he received a letter thanking him for his hard work this year, and awarding him a pay rise! (This happens every December)

 

At the beginning of January, we saw the same job being advertised on the internet. Husband rang his manager on site, who said that he should receive a phone call in the next couple of weeks, and he would be back on site then. That was 3 weeks ago - still waiting for a phone call. He questioned if he still needed the training package, to be told no, he didn't.

 

I personally didn't think they could go for Gmc, for the reasons given above. I thought they may make him redundant, but this is a multi national company, with hundreds of employees in the same job role as he is, at many sites all over the world. Redundancy procedure would be costly and time consuming

 

I then thought they may simply end his contract and pay him his notice period, saying there was no linger a requirement for his role on site, then if saw it being advertised.

[Emmzzi]

Surely if it was GMC he wouldn't have been allowed to work for 3 weeks, especially if safety was an issue. Procedures are obviously important so I can understand there being an issue if it was wrong (I'm not saying it was or wasn't), but as has been said this seems odd and I'm trying to see the logic.

 

1. never say never, we don't have investigation notes

2. you would start investigating with the possibility of GMC and maybe downgrade

 

but as I said, seems unlikely.

[rcl]

If there was an investigation, at no time was my husband questioned/interviewed or invited to attend an investigation meeting

[Sparks_]

How can they make him redundant if they are advertising his job?

[All animals are equal....]

Keep a copy of the job advert. It is proof that the job is still there.

[rcl]

Keep a copy of the job advert. It is proof that the job is still there.

 

I have saved it. Redundancy was a concern I had about the path they might take, but can't now because of the job advert. Thanks for the replies think we will speak to union on Monday and then see what happens

[Template0716]

I've read through the OP several times and I don't want to put a spanner in the works as I am making a few assumptions here.

 

 

1. Is he a contractor on a site?

2. Is there anywhere else he could work if his company relocated him? I see he has asked but what was the response?

 

 

The reason I ask is because I have been in the situation where we had an employee working on a contract, but the site manager removed security clearance as he believed the person to be a risk. After following procedures, and having nowhere else to locate the employee we had to dismiss on SOSR.

 

 

Now the above example is deliberately brief and vague to be safe, but a potentially fair dismissal doesn't have to be GM. Having said that, I just don't understand what the employer is doing by leaving an employee at home for so long.