Investigating manager old friends with boss

[Emmzzi]

yes, you can ask! that'd be reasonable.

 

how's your union rep doing?

[jodyperry]

Errrrm shocking lol. He met with him today and I went also but initially refused to come and see him. He insisted my oh met him at work which oh said he didn't feel comfortable being as he wasn't going to the interview without the evidence being supplied. His answer was well I'm not driving round the countryside' after a call to his manager he agreed to meet in a cafe next door to the office! In between these posts work have added/changed to his reasons of suspension. ( I presume they knew he had done nothing wrong). The rep has said his change is irrelevant just 'wording' and I was saying that isn't 'wording' paramount. I was under the impression that at every stage it should be made clear what he is accused of? It just seems they are working for them rather than actually deal with a complex case. It is really quite disheartening

[Emmzzi]

ask for a more experenced rep......

[billathome65]

Hope you don't mind, but was reading this and picked up on a few things

 

1. Additional notes state the rep was aggressive? ( There should only be one set of notes so if your notes do not state the rep was aggressively then you want to know what these other notes where? In my opinion. ) Surely if the rep was pulled in the office where note had been used to evidence the fact he was aggressive you're husband would have seen that note? Just chucking that in the mix.

2. Notes had stuff omitted and in another interview stuff was added? Did you OH not read the notes fully before signing? and did he have a rep in with him at both meetings? If yes, why did the rep not pick up and act on this? It may be an idea to speak with the reps area organizer and get some support and clarity there.

3. The Suspension letters must state the reason for suspension and if that reason has now changed, (If I read you right) then the policies and procedures and the case have been corrupted and should not be going further. (It Is my understanding that the reason stated has to be consistent all the way through you cannot change the reason for suspension if that's the case, then any interviews previously held would be irrelevant as the questions and notes would be for something else which they are now effectively saying didn't happen if that makes sense?) Please people correct me if I'm wrong here?

4. If all emails are dated, but this one isn't, then it has to be inadmissible ( in my opinion) because unless the company can prove that the email was done 6 months ago why is it not dated? I would ask for the company to prove the email was done 6 months ago and call it into question I'd go as far as to actual insist that the PC holding the email be admitted into the case so that the date stamp can be checked. That is my honest opinion.

5. Who informed you / your husband that the two bosses were having a laugh and a joke at the bosses investigation will they witness that? As it could be argued that the investigator was impartial again only my opinion.

6. I think you said your hubby has a disability is this an ongoing or progressive disability which is covered under the EA?

7. You say he was called in and told that he was no longer suspended, however, this was done informally so even with your hubby's notes to back it up they my say it's hearsay but maybe worth throwing in the mix? Just a thought.

8. Has he got written evidence that he was offered a job elsewhere in the company. If so that can be used to show that progress had been made away from the formal suspension as they were offering him a job elsewhere (Don't quote me on that, but if that's the case and you have written proof) would be jumping all over that one (This is again only my opinion)

 

 

It looks to me that the companies policies and procedures may have broken down and there is a case for your hubby please take the advice given and get intouch through the unions membership with a trained solicitor and get expert advice.

 

Sorry if It appears that I have made assumptions here I'm only picking up and throwing some insights into the pot.

[jodyperry]

Mostly the assumptions are correct , if anything I may of been a little vague with some things because so much has been done wrong that I've actually felt like I'm a little loony! With regard to the notes and the accusation of aggressiveness I really don't know , he's notes don't mention any thing of the sort so that's what he signed. All other notes have been ( at the correct times) amended and returned. The rep hasn't picked up on much of anything, I've been left to scour the work policies and the net for any info. To be fair the local rep has stated from very earl on that it's more complex than he knows how to deal with and referred us to the area manager and we have then when we still had no contact , contacted the regional manager. Even then they were happy to send him into this meeting unprepared!

[billathome65]

Unless the union handle this right and do as they should competently this could fall flat on its face.

 

If there is no wrongdoing by your hubby and the information you have given is as factual as possible, then I stand by the points in the previous post. with two changes in thought to points 1 and 2

 

So at all other meetings all notes were done right with omissions rectified before signing?

 

The aggressiveness issue by the rep thinking about it is a separate issue unless this was recorded in the notes that were taken, but copies would have been photocopied and so also have that note on them So I'm thinking that info was passed over as a separate matter so that's up to the rep and the boss to sort.

 

I would honestly raise your concerns re lack of union support and guidance directly with the union head office and ask for fresh eyes on the case and get some legal advice it can't hurt.

[jodyperry]

Grrrr deleted a whole message lol

[jodyperry]

With regard to the suspension letters it's hard to go into detail on a forum without it being clear who he works for but they have before the initial fact finding interview detailed a different reason to at least 3 prior letters regarding the suspension. I'm not sure if it's relevant as the suspension letters state they are not part of the discipline process.

The fact fining notes are in the evidence which include his amendments. He does state that he was asked to do something and it does state that he did not do it. This refers to the incident they are reliant on, which is not the incident mentioned in the first three letters. The interview was not held as a fact finding. I believe it was held to ask those two questions, which he would not lie about. He has been honest throughout. There were 3 questions asked in total and the meeting was 10 minutes long. The third relates to their initial reason for suspension and goes goes into details whereas the first two questions once they had their yes and no answer, they were quick to steer away from , not asking for any other details. The email supplied is a joke it's clearly written with a view to prove they are being fair, going into great detail about another employee and stating that both will be treated the same way. The fact that its not dated just adds to the suspicion that it has been written after the day it refers to.

Yes he is covered under the equalities act and has a grivance in place directly relating to the incident and discrimination. He is covered under it both for his disability and ankylosing spondylitis a carer. This grievance is not being heard either which the rep didn't see a problem with!

The written evidence about the other job is mentioned in the other interview he attended for being off sick and b&h h. He also was sent the outlines of the job although they don't contain a written offer. They were sent after asking numerous times to supply details of the terms they are offering it under. The union rep has agreed to write a witness statement detailing the offer and says there are at least 2 managers who were aware of the details. Can I ask them too?

How would He ask for the pc as we wouldn't have a clue what a date stamp is let alone how to find it?

I am well and truly stressing out! No body around me seems to see the significance of this meeting am I just overthinking things?

[billathome65]

The first letters state he did X whilst the letter leading to the suspension said he did Y? Is that what you are saying I want to make sure i'm understanding you right?

 

If the first letters were not formal suspension letters IE not saying on them, he was suspended for X but the last one was and detailed the reason for suspension, then they can argue the previous letters where initial fact finding letters and answers given lead to the suspension.

 

If the 3 initial letters you say are suspension letters and they state they are not part of the discipline process, they cannot be letters stating the word suspension because if they had the line you are suspended because of an allegation of X that would indicate that they are part of the discipline so by it stating not part of the discipline that is not factual You can't have one letter saying you're suspended for X and another stating your suspended for Y

 

If the first letters do state that he is suspended for X but the last letter before the initial fact finding interview also say he is suspended, but give a different reason, then in my opinion it's in clear breach of process. Hope this analogy makes sense, and has captured what I think is being said here accuratly?

 

All meetings relating to alleged wrongdoings are fact finding meeting regardless of what they are called in my opinion otherwise why, if he is suspended already would they be meeting with him? And again If the first 3 letters are for a different matter and indicate he is suspended, then there is a good case in my opinion.

 

Irrespective of questions asked If he failed to follow a reasonable request given by a manager that can be seen as gross misconduct so did he refuse to do the task or fail to complete either way you say that was the original premise for the ist letters as the allegation was changed in the last letter he can't reasonably know what he was suspended for. So my question is if he was officially suspended for X why was the last letter before the initial meeting stating a totally different reason for suspension.

 

The email you talk about you say has no date on it. You can call that email into question and dismiss it as inadmissible unless they can prove it was done 6 months ago that's my thought your hubbys stance is how does he know it wasn't done latter on in the process as a way to make it look like the company were acting fairly. It's the company's responsibility to prove it was done as they say at the start 6 months ago, so the best way for them to do that is to show the date it was sent. As you probably already know, when you send an email it has the time, date, who sent it. If that is not present I would be questioning the authenticity of their claim.

 

If you have written proof of another job being offered then that to me would indicate that options where being offered in order to bring the matter to a mutually beneficial close and if it hadn't been sorted why offer the alternative role?

 

Anyway, all the info I have given above is just my opinion and I am sure the resident experts here will clarify substantiate or correct anything that I believe as correct.

 

Regards, Bill

[jodyperry]

Could I pm you the wording differences on the letters?

Besides the obvious lack of regard for the disciplinary process The other job offer is what I can't see how they can justify. By suspending him they are saying I presume that in some way he poses a risk to the company. By offering him another position in the company ( with more responsibility) they were implying he's no longer a risk? Then because he wasn't fit to go back to work at that time ( he never refused the offer just asked for written details) , they are now saying the deals off the table - so he poses that risk again?

[billathome65]

Hi to be honest, knowing the written details is not going to help me advise you further as I am not repping your hubby.

 

You state the first 3 are letters stating he was suspended for X however the last states he was suspended for Y So I assume that's what they say and that is what I base my argument on if the first 3 letters don't say Suspended for X then my other statement above also stands unless anyone else can correct my understanding. Sorry i'm not avoiding the matter, I do not have the experience to advise further than I have already done and would suggest they are areas to build the case based on the information you have given.

 

You have a valid point on alternative job offer which is in line with my thoughts why offer a different position if he is still suspended?

 

Maybe some of the legally experienced guys on here can advise you more?

 

The stuff I have already put I stand by so there are a number of things to take from the previous stuff unless anything I have written is incorrect but if that's the case the brainiacs here will be able to steer you.

 

Lets know how it goes.

 

Regards Bill

[jodyperry]

Thank you and I'll def update, what with xmas , work and this I think I have a busy weekend

[jodyperry]

Sorry should of said when asked was you asked to do task he said yes then did you do the task he said no . The interviewer didn't go into any more detail. When he was asked , he said no a s will take him over his work time.

[billathome65]

As stated 3 letters you say state suspended for that issue, then last sighting a different issue. That's the basis to start building the case. He has his reasons for not doing the task, but that to be honest is irrelevant as if the last letter states suspended for something else the question of if he did the task or not is not why he was suspended, that's the companies mess up an as I see it there is no case (in my opinion) but it's how his union and your hubby deal with it that matters and all the other stuff re: email without date etc etc alternative job offer disability can be chucked into the mix.

 

Fingers crossed and you end up with a VERY Merry Xmas and New Year.

 

Regards Bill

[jodyperry]

Well just come off the phone from rep who says it doesn't matter that they havnt supplied a summary of investigation as it stated was enclosed as it just means they can't introduce it. Surely no investigation means no case ? Not holding out any hope I expect oh to be dismissed monday

[billathome65]

Couldn't make heads or tails of last post couldn't pm you as your private message box is full and needs space clearing, so will just say either I have missed something or I have read all of this thread wrong. You stated in a previous thread they had done an investigation however the company then changed the reason for the suspension? I'm totally confused and this is now way over my level of understanding so will leave this with the resident experts.

 

Hope you get this sorted

 

A very confused Bill

[jodyperry]

Hi just wanted to update. Bill I have cleared my inbox, some of those were years old. The interview didn't go brilliant, but I wrote oh a statement and it seems pretty clear that everything there he got his point across that it hadn't been handled fairly. The investigator was really angry apparently , talking through gritted teeth some of the times and made a snide comment about oh. I don't see why he had any reason to be angry to be honest if he's impartial but I'm no expert. I'm a bit concerned about the fact that he point blank refused to have a computer submitted for a time stamp and has said I'll get you a date. Presumably he will just go and look for another way round to get a date on the piece paper? I'm not sure where oh stands with regard to requesting evidence and told no. Quite honestly at this moment in time its all menial to me. I can only assume that finally having a chance to question why this is happening and why nobody has had to justify the way he's been treated for the past two years is what my husband needed. From the sounds of it it was clear from the investigators reactions that he knew oh was right. Prior to this oh was a confident man, and they had turned him into someone who was unsure of himself, under confident, and miserable. Most of the time we were left to take the brunt of it. When he came out it seems to of switched a switch , it was the first glimpse of the man I had married I've had in years, so regardless of anything for me that's a victory and I'm hoping his feeling lasts

[billathome65]

Seems like it went better than you think if it had the Investigator rattled fingers crossed and remember if it all goes south OH can always appeal. I've PM'd you with other thoughts.

 

Your OH has you backing him so don't let him go down without a fight.

 

Good Luck.

 

Bill

[Emmzzi]

Seems like it went better than you think if it had the Investigator rattled fingers crossed and remember if it all goes south OH can always appeal. I've PM'd you with other thoughts.

 

Your OH has you backing him so don't let him go down without a fight.

 

Good Luck.

 

Bill

 

We tend not to pm thoughts as some times they are wrong thoughts and people rely on them without critique: up to op though!

[billathome65]

I must apologize, you're right, I shouldn't PM my thoughts about how it will be interesting to see if they provide the email with a date stamp, and how I'm glad the support given on here by everyone she feels has helped her OH regain some confidence.

 

I felt Jody and her oh needed some moral support as well as practical support. However, you seemed to assume that by saying thoughts, my thoughts were to do with an opinion or two that may be wrong? The op started the thread in order to get practical advice and as my signature states anything I say is only my opinion. I am not in a position, nor would I give advice privately that could not be supported and or addressed as incorrect. That's why my opinions are in the threads and not hidden.

 

If I have helped a little in anyway, that's what matters. It seems that based on the advice and opinions on the thread she was able to prime her oh to such an extent that he could factually challenge people who had eroded his confidence and self esteem.

 

I say well done to them both and her oh can at least hold his head high.

 

I thought i'd send that thought privately, as a bit of encouragement.

 

:)

[jodyperry]

Just to put everyone's mind at rest I do understand that the advice and opinions given to me are taken the opinions of that person and that its down to me whether to use that advice to look into certain aspects and decide how they may or may not be relevant. dont want to cause any worry or anything. I havnt checked the thread for a few days as ( as well as christmas) I have been loving spending time with my 'old' husband. I do attribute the majority of that to be down to advice I have had on here and can't thank you all enough. My oh works for a massive company and I have been aware from the get go that if they decide to 'play dirty' they will probably win, which is perhaps why I was so elated with 'my win' of getting my husband back, although I must admit even I didn't know that that's what I was fighting for.

I'm not sure there's many ways to go from here to be honest were at a bit of a standstill. The notes from the meeting have still not been supplied so who knows what crap is going to be in them. I personally can't see that they have any grounds to dismiss and have certainly not followed any proceedure but suspect they will. What I do know is that no body looking at the case outside of the company could possibly say they have acted fairly but in the past I know people have been advised that acas simply don't have the resources to fight the company should they dismiss and push us to tribunal. Maybe they will see this and not dismiss I don't know but he would be going back to work with a target on his back which is a shame because if they listened they would realise that that's all he wants to do. All I can say for now is I dont know , I really don't know

[Emmzzi]

Hi jody - to clarify, it isn't about acas having enough resoures - they simply don't exist to champion individual causes, they just mediate. Generally they wouldn't be my first port of call for great advce. Unin membeship or legal cover on home insurance tend to be the better routes.

[jodyperry]

The union have really tried to put us off using even their legal line in fact scared us to a certain extent and implied that it wouldn't sit well if what he wanted is to return to work. In hind site maybe that's what we should of done when it was first suggested on here. Hind site seems to be a recurring theme with me

[billathome65]

You can still phone the solicitors so go for it. your just asking for advice at this moment in time.

 

Regards Bill

[jodyperry]

Well still no notes. I can't imagine what is taking so long for notes but I guess they may be slightly different from oh notes x