Letter on file, no disiplinary action taken

[grevious]

My wife is in charge of a section in an accounts dept and looks after an account, for an internal social club, this social club account is voluntary work.

This account is normally audited by an ATT approved accountant.

The Head accountant has been on long term sick leave, he has audited this account in the past.

 

The deputy manager has hired a short term replacement accountant for 6 months.

The deputy manager has said that this short term replacement will audit this account.

My wife asked this replacement for a copy of her qualifications to add to the social account,

that when she leaves her record will be recorded.

 

The replacement then went to the deputy manager to ask, why my wife was checking up on her.

As this short term replacenent hadn't given my wife her documents

she then went to a "public domain ATT web site" hoping to find her number to add to the account.

This web site list all ATT aproved accountants.

This short term replacements name was not on it.

 

My wife was called to a meeting where the deputy manager and an HR person was there, she was asked to explain why she was checking up on the "short term replacements credentials.

My wife explained the sittuation, that is Normal practice for a Fully qualified accountant to audit the books, and thats why she wanted the document.

 

After the meeting, my wife who sits near her manager, explained the short term replacement,s name was not on the ATT web site.

The manager then pulled up the replacements ATT certificate onto her computer and said it didn't look fake.

 

She asked the manager for a copy of her ATT certificate to add to her records.

This was refused.

The deputy manager then asked, my wife, for a link to this ATT web site.

 

Latter that day the deputy manager said the social account didnt need a fully approved ATT accountant to audit the social account and that she she was putting a letter on to file for inappropiate behaviour.

 

Latter in the week the deputy manager and the short term staff had a meeting where, the short term replacement resigned.

 

My wife has also asked in writting for clarification that, The social account does not need a fulley qualified accountant, to audit.

The deputy manager has refused to reply.

 

My wife has now been called to a meeting on Monday with the deputy Manager, an HR representative, and a Senior director.

She was also told she will still have this letter placed on her file

 

1) I do not think it is allowed to add a letter to ones file unless disciplinary procedure's are followed?

 

2) no letters to any meetings have been given out, all these meetings have been verbally requested.

 

3) It would also appear that no written complaints have been made.

 

My wife is naturally worried.

Help please.

[BazzaS]

Does this say if it an investigatory meeting or a disciplinary one, and is she the subject or being called as a witness (which is a possibility!).

Is she is a Union?

[grevious]

It was possibly an investigatory but there was no mention of this, no mention of a disciplinary, no formal letters, Just can you come into the office for a chat.

No mention of being called for a witness.

She is not in a union.

The meeting on monday was a verbal one, to sort out the problem.

She is adament that a letter on her file is unjust.

s

[BazzaS]

 

 

My wife was called to a meeting where the deputy manager and an HR person was there, ........

 

 

 

Latter in the week the deputy manager and the short term staff had a meeting where, the short term replacement resigned.

 

........

My wife has now been called to a meeting on Monday with the deputy Manager, an HR representative, and a Senior director. She was also told she will still have this letter placed on her file

 

It was possibly an investigatory but there was no mention of this, no mention of a disciplinary, no formal letters, Just can you come into the office for a chat.

No mention of being called for a witness.

She is not in a union.

The meeting on monday was a verbal one, to sort out the problem.

She is adament that a letter on her file is unjust.

s

 

The meeting on Monday _WAS_ a verbal one?

Yet she "has now been called to a meeting on Monday"

 

I can't work out if you are saying she is to attend the meeting (following previous one(s)), or it has already happened.

One for the "employment gurus"? (which I don't claim to be ......)

[grevious]

The meeting on Monday was called by the deputy manager, verbally, no letter.This I believe is to sort the problem out.

Still no mention of a Disciplinary. Although they still want to put a letter on her file for "inappropiate action".

On Friday the Tempory staff was offered the chance to resign, why? I don't know what other options she was given my Wife has been told this is no concern of hers. Although all the rest of the staff say the Temp was escorted off the premisis.

Also her manager says theTemps job has been re-advertised.

All sounds very strange

[BazzaS]

I still can't tell if the meeting HAS happened or IS TO happen ("was called" "is to" : the tense keeps changing)

 

You know what has gone on, but people reading the thread rely on you to be clear, to be able to advise.

 

If the meeting is to occur on Monday, and is a disciplinary, it does see strange that at least one outcome (the letter!) has been decided in advance. Beyond that : I'm out - someone else can try and decipher events!

[sangie5952]

The meeting on Monday was called by the deputy manager, verbally, no letter.This I believe is to sort the problem out.

Still no mention of a Disciplinary. Although they still want to put a letter on her file for "inappropiate action".

On Friday the Tempory staff was offered the chance to resign, why? I don't know what other options she was given my Wife has been told this is no concern of hers. Although all the rest of the staff say the Temp was escorted off the premisis.

Also her manager says theTemps job has been re-advertised.

All sounds very strange

But it isn't any of her business what it sounds like or what had happened to somebody else. The manager is correct about that. I assume you are expecting the manager to not put up a note on the staff noticeboard saying your wife had had a note put on her file? Because the same applies - what happens to your wife is nobody else's business.

 

There is "no such thing" as a letter on file. It's meaningless. I frequently add notes to the files I hold on people. That's all it means. This is an internal process of the employer - and if they want to put notes on files, they can. It's also up to the employer to decide what inappropriate behaviour is. That said, she does appear to have inexplicably been pushy about something that is none of her business. Even based on your version of the tale, I can read between the lines, and there's a strong message from the employer here for her to butt out of what isn't her business. And she didn't!

 

Personally I think this sounds like a storm in tea cup that is rapidly turning into a hurricane. So I'd maybe suggest taking it down a notch or two. A simple I'm sorry if I appeared to overstep the line, it wasn't intentional and I don't want to offend anyone might just bring this all to an end.

[Emmzzi]

a factual note on your file is absolutely fine. it can be for a variety of reasons, often not related to conduct, and is there for future reference.

 

I would let it lie and not kick off pointlessly - it means nothing, it is just a record. You may as well ask for mind wipes if you are determined to get it removed; best have a factual record than what someone remembers from no written account months and months after the event.

 

your wife can make her own file note too and keep it in a file at home if it calms her down!

[grevious]

Many thanks to all concerned.

A letter as you say is just a note.

We think trying to ramp this down is possibly to way to go.

No harm was intended by my wife's actions.

She is perfectly willing to go down this road.

But if the company issues a, formal Disciplinary letter, then thats different.

[sangie5952]

I sort of understand what you are saying. But in what way would it be different?

 

 

There'd be not a damned thing she could do about it (unless she were sacked).

She could appeal of course.

Not that anybody ever really wins appeals.

But it would certainly show them that she had no intention of ever dropping anything when she is told to!!!!

 

 

It's a way to go, but given where she is right now, possibly not one a would recommend.

Sometimes, head down and mouth shut is the best strategy.

I honestly think this is one of those times!

[Ethel Street]

This sounds a bit like what is sometimes called a "management advice" meeting. I've come across that in public sector several times. Essentially it's when management disagree with what you have done but it isn't serious enough to warrant disciplinary procedures. It's usually exactly what it sounds like, management will tell your wife she handled it wrongly and what she should have done. They'll send a letter or make a note on file of the discussion. But it won't be treated as a disciplinary matter.

[king12345]

I disagree with previous posts.

The note in the file is meaningless on its own, but I have attended disciplinary meetings in which these innocent notes or letters of advice came back to life to give the employee a harsher kick.

From what I understand the rule is that a certified accountant signs off the records and your wife is in charge of making sure that this rule is adhered to.

The fact that the temporary "accountant" was escorted off the premises makes me think that she was not an accredited accountant at all and possibly her certificate was forged.

The management is now peed off that they failed to properly check her accreditation and want to put the blame on your wife.

So if I was defending your wife I would say that she acted accordingly to the rules and responsibilities of her role and surely I won't let her sign this note.

By all means, if they want to put the note in her file, they can, but she shouldn't endorse it.

Also, as I always say, this meeting must be recorded.

A phone app or a sound recorder in the pocket works perfectly.

I always start the meeting with pen and paper in my hand and say: "if you don't mind I will take my own record of this meeting" and the managers always say: "no problem" making it sound like they accepted to be recorded.

I never had to use any of my recordings fortunately, but you never know, this might be the start of a hunt campaign against your wife who incidentally uncovered management incompetence.

Stay safe, tell your wife not to be confrontational but not let the managers mug her off.

[grevious]

Many thanks "king12345"

We are coming to the same conclusion.

A slap on the wrist, unsigned note on the file, no problem.

Perhaps a handshake for uncovering incompetence, not too sure on that one,,,, yet,,,maybe.

She won't be confrontational, but she knows her intentions were right, professional and honourable.

[sangie5952]

I disagree with previous posts. Of course you do. You always do!

The note in the file is meaningless on its own, but I have attended disciplinary meetings in which these innocent notes or letters of advice came back to life to give the employee a harsher kick. Not if there are no further problems, they don't. You seem to think the OP had an option. They can put the note on her file. They don't need to ask for permission.

From what I understand the rule is that a certified accountant signs off the records and your wife is in charge of making sure that this rule is adhered to. Nowhere is any of that said. The opposite in fact. It had been stated that the accounts did not need to be signed off by a certified accountant.

The fact that the temporary "accountant" was escorted off the premises makes me think that she was not an accredited accountant at all and possibly her certificate was forged. And now you are doing the same as the OP. Your are guessing at something based on no knowledge whatsoever. You know less than anyone!

The management is now peed off that they failed to properly check her accreditation and want to put the blame on your wife. Another guess on your part. There is no evidence to support this guess.

So if I was defending your wife I would say that she acted accordingly to the rules and responsibilities of her role and surely I won't let her sign this note. Would you? And where does it say that she did. This is not in evidence. She was told to leave it alone - and she didn't. That is a fairly clear starting from the employer that it isn't her responsibility at all.

By all means, if they want to put the note in her file, they can, but she shouldn't endorse it. She doesn't need to.

Also, as I always say, this meeting must be recorded.

A phone app or a sound recorder in the pocket works perfectly. And, as yippy ate perfectly aware, covert recording can get get into an awful lot more trouble. It can get her dismissed. But heh - it won't be you sacked, will it?

I always start the meeting with pen and paper in my hand and say: "if you don't mind I will take my own record of this meeting" and the managers always say: "no problem" making it sound like they accepted to be recorded. A lie. Great advice.

I never had to use any of my recordings fortunately, but you never know, this might be the start of a hunt campaign against your wife who incidentally uncovered management incompetence. If she follows your advice, it certainly will be!

Stay safe, tell your wife not to be confrontational but not let the managers mug her off.

 

It's certainly an opinion. If the OP wants his wife sacked, she should certainly do all this. Might as well call the manager to their face too, just to be sure she gets sacked. Every single one of your assertions are based on total fabrication of facts not in evidence. Your guesses are no better than those already made - and which have already landed her here in the first place. And your best suggestion is to compound that. Perhaps you think confrontation and assumptions are always the best way forward. It often feels like that. Confrontation doesn't win cars, it starts a war where one doesn't exist. Employees always lose wars....

[king12345]

Sangie595, let me reply point by point:

1. I don't always disagree with other caggers, you're fabricating.

2. I stated that the note on file on its own is meaningless, but can and will be used IF AND ONLY IF there's a problem in future, so I agree with you.

3. The op stated that the accounts must be signed off by a certified accountant, that's the rule, but a manager then said the opposite: I prefer to go with the rules.

4. "Makes me think" means just that it raises suspicion, never said it was a fact.

5. Management is peed off, fact, otherwise they wouldn't have spoken to op's wife.

6. Written rule go above managers' verbal instructions. Example: If I have to go up a ladder and the rule says that I need a harness and a manager says, don't worry about it, who is going to be blamed if I fall? The manager would simply deny saying anything and point at the rules.

7. We agree that she doesn't need to sign the note

8. Covert recording is needed in case the employee is dismissed unfairly and it all goes to tribunal. In any other case the recording will never come to life.

9. Saying that you're taking your own record when in fact you are is not a lie, is a fact. Managers need to wise up considering that they think they are the bee's knee.

10. I said not to be confrontational and state that she acted accordingly to the rules. How is this going to be detrimental? Managers don't like being caught out with their incompetence and some may take a dislike on someone who ACCIDENTALLY uncovered it, like in this case.

11. Don't need to start any war, but your suggestion to bend over and be a doormat for the managers is very poor. Workers have lost their job, home, family and health to fight for workers right in the past century and you are spitting on their grave by accepting all rubbish thrown at you by the managers.

Sorry, but I find this disgusting.

[sangie5952]

Sangie595, let me reply point by point:

1. I don't always disagree with other caggers, you're fabricating.

2. I stated that the note on file on its own is meaningless, but can and will be used IF AND ONLY IF there's a problem in future, so I agree with you.

3. The op stated that the accounts must be signed off by a certified accountant, that's the rule, but a manager then said the opposite: I prefer to go with the rules. No. The OP said that the accounts were "normally" audited by a certified accountant. That does not make it a rule. It makes it something that usually happened. The OP's wife was then specifically told that it wasn't necessary and wasn't a "rule".

4. "Makes me think" means just that it raises suspicion, never said it was a fact. And as I said, it puts you in exactly the same place as the OPs wife - guessing at things that aren't in evidence and aren't your business.

5. Management is peed off, fact, otherwise they wouldn't have spoken to op's wife. I agree entirely. They are peed off with the OPs wife!

6. Written rule go above managers' verbal instructions. Example: If I have to go up a ladder and the rule says that I need a harness and a manager says, don't worry about it, who is going to be blamed if I fall? The manager would simply deny saying anything and point at the rules. There is no rule! This is the point that you keep missing. Nobody has shown that there is a rule, and after being told that there was no rule the OPs wife kept on digging for one! That is what got her the telling off.

7. We agree that she doesn't need to sign the note

8. Covert recording is needed in case the employee is dismissed unfairly and it all goes to tribunal. In any other case the recording will never come to life. No, it is not needed. Covert recording is, as you are well aware, against the law. And when caught she will be dismissed. That will improve things massively, won't it?

9. Saying that you're taking your own record when in fact you are is not a lie, is a fact. Managers need to wise up considering that they think they are the bee's knee.

10. I said not to be confrontational and state that she acted accordingly to the rules. How is this going to be detrimental? Managers don't like being caught out with their incompetence and some may take a dislike on someone who ACCIDENTALLY uncovered it, like in this case.

11. Don't need to start any war, but your suggestion to bend over and be a doormat for the managers is very poor. Workers have lost their job, home, family and health to fight for workers right in the past century and you are spitting on their grave by accepting all rubbish thrown at you by the managers.

Sorry, but I find this disgusting.

 

I am perfectly aware - more so than you, I would bet - what workers have given up for their rights. That does not make workers always correct. You start, every time, from the basis that workers are far above and better than management, that management are always wrong and that workers can do no wrong. So if workers break the law or do wrong, then it's ok because they are workers. No management are not always right. Neither are workers. And that is what you fail to grasp.

 

And as one of those workers who has TWICE lost their job defending the rights and employment of other workers, I find your comment offensive in the extreme.

 

What I am not, is filled with hatred for all things to do with employers. That is what all your posts sound like. For you, any means justify the end in an unrelenting war against employers. And that is absolutely fine if you are doing it to yourself. When you are leading others to risk their employment by acting in ways that will make things worse, it is not fine. Everything is not about class war - this isn't a board game - and you catch far more flies (and employers) with honey.

[king12345]

Covert recording is not against the law and it's been used in employment tribunal before.

See for example the first one that comes up on google, but plenty there:

 

Punjab National Bank v. Gosain [2014] UKEAT/0003/14/SM

 

Please, before you make claims check what you're suggesting.

If you've been dismissed unfairly because you were defending workers rights, maybe a covert recording would have been beneficial.

[sangie5952]

Covert recording is not against the law and it's been used in employment tribunal before.

See for example the first one that comes up on google, but plenty there:

 

Punjab National Bank v. Gosain [2014] UKEAT/0003/14/SM

 

Please, before you make claims check what you're suggesting.

If you've been dismissed unfairly because you were defending workers rights, maybe a covert recording would have been beneficial.

 

As a senior trade union official regularly representing members successfully, I have always found being able to read accurately a useful skill. Sharing a covert recording IS against the law. And covert recording is a breach of various laws and regulations in and of itself. SOME particular cases have decided to use such evidence in very special circumstances - something which, if you read the judgement that you quoted in its entirety, would be very clear because the judge said exactly that. As a general rule, except for some limited and specific circumstances, covert recording are not admissible evidence. So before you make claims, please check it properly yourself.

 

Another point that you appear to have missed. I have pointed out repeatedly that it doesn't matter what the law says. Dismissal when caught making covert recordings of your employer is a fair dismissal under breach of trust and confidence. Right now the OP's wife has had a minor wrist slap for being persistent when she was told not to. You seem to be determined to make it into a dismissal for something substantial.

 

I don't know what you think trade unions did before the days when recorders didn't fit in your pocket. Not win? I am deeply touched by your concern about my dismissals, but I am happy to tell you that I am perfectly satisfied with the way my union dealt with the matters, despite the fact that there were no covert recordings.

 

Every single time you post on this board, your only response is a knee jerk "employees good, employers bad". You seem determined to turn everything into a war. If that is your world, well it must be nice having everything black and white. But in the world where I have members to represent, the aim is to get them out of situations without making the situation worse. Not all members are "innocent", whatever that means; and not all employers are "guilty".

 

But I am bored of this now. The OP is welcome to follow whatever advice they like. But if their wife gets caught following yours, then she is now fully aware of the consequences of doing so.

[king12345]

You first say that covert recording is illegal,

when found to be wrong you add the "sharing" which you omitted.

 

Sorry to say, but as a fellow union rep you should be more aware that one word can change the meaning of a sentence.

Unless you didn't know and after googling it decided to add "sharing" to your statement.

My way is better safe than sorry.

 

I know employees are not always right and employers wrong,

but on this occasion I don't see why the op's wife should be "punished" for pointing something out to the managers.

There's no war to start, a simple statement that she acted correctly will suffice.

 

The covert recording could come handy if one day they decide to blame her for not having checked the accountant credentials.

It happens all the time.

[sangie5952]

I have not added or changed anything.

Please read what I have said again.

 

 

And I am not a union rep.

I didn't say I was!

Please read what I said again.

 

 

The OPs wife was not punished.

She was reprimanded for not quitting doing something she was told not to do.

In what book does disobeying a reasonable instruction get to be ok.

She should have given it up when she was told to.

 

 

It was nothing to do with her and none of her business.

And since she didn't recruit the person or have any knowledge of them, she wouldn't have been in a position to be blamed for anything if she hadn't ignored a direct instruction and gone snooping. And you are still aiming that the accountant wasn't qualified.

Something nowhere in evidence.

 

 

I repeat - this is all supposition based on not a single fact, which the OP and his wife have constructed, and you have swallowed whole.

For all anyone knows, the accountant had changed her name and "disappeared" to escape an abusive relationship,

 

 

this incident somehow alerted her former partner to her whereabouts, and she packed up and ran,

the employer seeing her safely off the premises and home.

Based on the facts, it's as credible as any other story, and I've seen this exact thing happen.

 

 

Putting two and two together may give you 4 - but it's amazing how often the answer people come up with is 7.

[king12345]

At 07:12 today you wrote: "Covert recording is, as you are well aware, against the law."

Then at 12:35, AFTER I pointed out that you were wrong you wrote: "Sharing a covert recording IS against the law."

So you added the word "sharing" as I said.

If this had been a verbal communication an audio recording would have been handy, unfortunately it's all in your previous post, so you can see for yourself that you did "add or changed" something, the word "sharing".

Again, this denial despite hard facts is very poor from a union guy, whatever you do for the union.

[sangie5952]

Try reading the sentence AFTER that!

 

And there go assumptions again. Not a guy. And very senior in a union. You are maybe not aware of the fact, women have been in the union since the earliest of times, and we helped make this movement what it is. The idea that unions are made up of men appears to coincide with the very patriarchal idea that it's all a class war. Very 1960. It's 2017, you know?

 

You want to continue to argue, argue with yourself. The OP would be an idiot to follow your advice. But it's their choice.

[king12345]

What sentence AFTER changes the fact that you didn't know that covert recording IS legal?

Up to the op's wife to be a doormat for the managers or politely decline to sign any admission of wrongdoing without starting any war and gain evidence of it.

Playing the gender card is a further low point from you: This is the internet, you are faceless and nobody can guess what you are, male, female or other.

That's why in contracts they write that the masculine gender includes the feminine etc. It's an accepted form of writing.

Anyhow, I don't have much respect for very senior union officials as I have caught them cutting dirty deals with directors on many occasions to the detriment of operational staff, you know what I am talking about.

[honeybee13]

I think we should wait for the OP to come back now, as they haven't logged in for a couple of days.

 

King, if you want to continue this discussion, perhaps you would care to start a new discussion thread. I think any more talk on this one risks taking it off topic.

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

historical interest, look up the match girls strike.

 

remember, this all came about over the auditing of a social club accounts.

Social club I was secretary of was fortunate enough to have qualified accountants as members so treasurer was always a qualified or part qualifed accountant.

 

 

Our auditor? a lay member who was given the right to go though the books because there was no rule that required an auditor and club law doesnt require it either as that is more to do with licensing.

 

When I was a union branch treasurer we had no qualified auditors either to check up on the returns from an unqualified person.

 

 

Sometimes trust is better than a piece of paper and a club that has more rules than it needs is not something I would wish to be a member of.