Disciplinary Investigation

[Dienekes]

Last Friday I was given a letter at work informing me that I am the subject of a disciplinary investigation. I work for a large Civil Service Department and have seventeen years of unblemished service. I should also point out that I am not a union member.

 

I am based at one particular office but I am required to travel to other locations on a regular basis. The investigation relates to expenses and travel time claimed for these days. As far as I know I have claimed correctly and cannot guess what the problem might be.

 

A manager from another region will be conducting the investigation. I am to attend a meeting within the next couple of weeks where I presume I will be given the details of the allegations against me.

 

I contacted ACAS and they informed me that I should be given copies of the evidence which has given rise to the investigation prior to any fact finding meeting.

 

I have no experience of these matters and am unsure how to approach this. Should I attend the meeting in the dark or should I refuse to attend until I see some more details?

 

I'd be grateful for some advice,

 

Thanks in advance.

[Emmzzi]

ACAS are incorrect. You don't get evidence upfront as many people use that to fabricate a story round it.

 

*If* it proceeds to a hearing after the fact find, then you should undertand the evidence.

 

At this stage, turn up and tell the truth. It's prbably a storm in a tea cup.

[Dienekes]

Thank you for replying. I guess I'll wait and see what comes of the meeting.

[becky2585]

If you haven't done anything wrong, you probably don't have anything to worry about, as difficult as the situation seems at the moment.

 

As Emmzzi correctly says, ACAS are incorrect - you don't have the right to see evidence before an investigatory meeting, but you do have the right to see it before any disciplinary hearing.

[ericsbrother]

are your travel expenses for rail travel or use of private vehicle?

If the latter I bet someone has input random claims into google maps or the like and found out that A is only 9.8 miles from B and 10 miles have been claimed so people who make regular journeys away from the office are being given a grilling over the "additional" claimed miles.

I had a claim for travel expenses queried (not civil service though) queried as they said my route was shorter than claimed. They didnt see from their map it is not possible to get a van over a railway footbridge.... computer says no....

[Dienekes]

Thanks for your interest, ericsbrother. I travel by rail and bus to work. I am not a driver.

 

I had my fact finding meeting today. I was grilled for three hours on every aspect of my expenses claims. There seemed to be two main areas of concern relating to subsistence claims and the recording of my arrival times at work.

 

I am entitled to claim subsistence on days when not at my main place of employment. We provide receipts up to a maximum of £9.30 for each day and are paid appropriately. I take my own food to work so I asked my line manager if it was acceptable to claim for goods bought during supermarket shops and taken to work in the following days. Our official guidance does not mention whether this is acceptable or not it merely states that the food should be consumed during the course of the working day. I was told by successive line managers that this was acceptable and all my claims were authorised. In January of this year new guidelines were issued and receipts must now be for the particular day. I therefore stopped claiming subsistence immediately. This was before I became aware of any investigation.

 

The second issue was the recording of when I arrived at work. Excess travel time is calculated by the following method. Take the total home to home absence, subtract the hours worked and the normal travelling time to my normal place of work and the remainder is claimed as excess hours, paid at basic hourly rate. I generally arrive at the same time each day but sometimes, owing to train delays and so forth I am later than normal. I have been in the habit of putting the same time in regardless (usually 8.45). There was one period of around six months where due to engineering work on the local rail network I was regularly later than this but I still input the same time. My overall claim was the same, my working day would be increased and my excess hours claimed would decrease, but there was no material gain to me. I accepted at the hearing that my claims were not accurately recorded and 'by the book', but I did not benefit as an incorrect rise in my working time would be compensated by a commensurate drop in my travel time. The overall home to home absence was accurately recorded. I have been claiming in this way for the last four years and all claims have been authorised by various managers.

 

In addition there were a few discrepancies where I had made mistakes. For example mixing up two weeks on the computerised claiming system so that they didn't match. However, over the period of ten working days the correct amounts were claimed.

 

The manager conducting the investigation gave no real indication of what she thought of my evidence. As I said in my original post I have never had any issues during my 17 years with my current employer so have little idea of what will happen by way of sanction. I accept that I am guilty of minor misconduct for not recording my working and travelling times accurately but this did not result in any benefit to me so I am hoping that it will not be considered gross misconduct.

 

I am naturally concerned about the whole thing. I would be grateful for the opinions of more knowledgeable people.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Emmzzi]

I agree, seems like a fuss over nowt but they need to audit periodically to deter would be fraudsters.

 

I don't think you have been suspended, have you?

[Dienekes]

I haven't been suspended. Still working a normal pattern. Myself and my colleagues were audited in December for the first time in living memory and the investigation arose as a result of this. I accept that I have been a bit sloppy in my claims but the management in my office have been similarly sloppy. No concerns have been raised in the four years I have been in my current role.

[Emmzzi]

If they are investigating something serious, you get suspended. (It doesn't mean you are innocent or guilty but that the charges are serious).

 

Honestly I'd expect some wrist slapping; you haven't gained or tried to. Not 100%; but nothing is.

[Dienekes]

Thanks for your comments Emmzzi, they are much apppreciated. I'm mainly concerned because of other things that have been happening at work recently. Last year a new senior management team was put in place. Since they have arrived the new bosses have been throwing their weight around and morale has plummeted. For example, we had a Voluntary Redunancy Scheme at the end of last year and 70% of staff applied for it, including many who have 20 or 30 years service. They have instituted a major cost cutting exercise of which the expenses audit was a part. I am concerned that they wish to make an example of someone and the hammer may fall on me.

 

I'll find out the outcome of the meeting in a couple of weeks. I will post back then.

[Emmzzi]

Never assume malice when incompetence is the more obvious option.

[ericsbrother]

the subsistence allowance used to be paid at a flat rate and no receipts were ever required becasue that was what the taxmans said was OK. It was that, not a reimbursement of expenses so when I worked for an organisation that used the same argeed subsistence allowances as the Civil Service one would claim £x per day and £y for overnight accommodation (more if abroad). It didnt matter if you stopped in a youth hostel or 5* hotel, you got the same per night.

I suspect that someone elsewhere has been caught out abusing the system so they have introduced an new one and the audit is to look at the fitness of the changes rather than trying to catch out people whose travel time varies for the same route. However, we all have come across managers who dont think that you should get anything as you have to eat anyway!

[Dienekes]

I hope you're right, ericsbrother. I'll find out in a week or two.

[Dienekes]

I had my disciplinary hearing today. I received a written warning in regard to my sloppy record keeping. I would like to thank all of you who took the trouble to respond to my query. Your advice and support is much appreciated.

[Emmzzi]

A decent result. I'm pleased for you - and appreciate you updating!

[ericsbrother]

A bit of face saving and tightening up on bad habits in equal proportions.