Wife being accused after handing notice in

[sangie5952]

Assuming there is anything, it may be too late to get it off the premises. Bearing in mind that they would have the right to check what she is taking, and it might lead to further allegations which would be difficult to disprove. So be cautious to not take anything that could be used against her.

 

I'd also just suggest, albeit it may not be the case, but don't get too worried yet. Being "accused" of something doesn't mean the employer believes it or will do anything about it. It's often best to worry when there's something to worry about. Hard to ignore, I know, but it won't help her any. Your are correct - if it were that serious, especially in these types of employment, I would expect an immediate suspension to prevent anyone tampering with evidence or witnesses- even if I didn't believe it to be true, I'd expect suspension to protect everyone. That's why it's important she mustn't be seen to give any hint of tampering with evidence. 

 

It seems an extreme reaction to just handing in her notice. Is there's anything more to this? 

 

Past that, at this stage, there isn't really much we can advise on. You need to tell us what the allegation is and what the employer is saying tomorrow. Then take it from there. I assume she isn't in a union? My best advice at this stage is to tell her to say almost nothing. If an allegation is made she should say it isn't true(I assume it won't be true - obviously if it is true she should not say anything at all). Please understand that it isn't our role to believe her or not believe her (and you are just a tad biased!). So we can only advise based on what we know and trying to be impartial. 

 

She should take clear notes of what is said and done. Make them pause so she can take notes if needs be. Her record if this is important. 

 

She should not attempt too explain herself or go into details. And she should not resign. Definitely do not resign. This may be nothing more than an attempt to oust  her quicker, but in care settings allegations like this can come back to haunt her, so she mustn't do or say anything too precipitous.

Edited April 15, 2019 by sangie5952

[sangie5952]

That doesn't really change anything. There was an incident, and it was a serious one. Right now she does not know what she is accused of, if anything. So she goes to the meeting and she says that she hasn't done anything wrong. If they ask her what happened, she tells the truth. But she doesn't say anything more. You need to separate this from her handing in her resignation. That is a coincidence. An incident happened. It could have had serious outcomes. The employer is right to investigate this. That does not mean that she has done anything wrong or that she will be found guilty of anything - this is an investigation.

 

Wait and see what happens, then come back if there is a problem. 

[sangie5952]

Wait and see if anything comes of it first. To be honest, someone had made a complaint. The employer must investigate it. That doesn't mean they will do anything other than tick a few boxes. I'm afraid this story of thing happens a lot, and it's all about covering their backs. The fact is that unless they decide to pursue this as a case against her, there's nothing to worry about. It would be very stupid of them to do that because it actually opens up a can of worms I doubt they want opening. And treating her badly won't make her stay, will it? 

 

I might be wrong. Maybe they are stupid. But nothing had happened yet. It may not. Let's wait  and see?

[sangie5952]

So, for now they appear to be simply following due process. Whatever the employer, good or bad, I'd expect that. So there is nothing to do right now. I assume she has a copy of the report?

[sangie5952]

It sounds like they are going through the motions of an investigation because they must. Which is disturbing, but perhaps not unexpected given what you have said. You will still have to sit it out and see what happens. There is nothing to be done unless they try to take it further.

[sangie5952]

One step at a time now then. 

 

She needs to prepare her defence.

 

She has evidence that there was a report of a fault on the door. And one other member of staff confirms this. Other staff may be denying it, so let's be generous - her defence (a) is that there is an intermittent fault on the door which had been reported had not yet been rectified, resulting in a resident leaving the premises. 

 

This "intermittent fault" on the door, which had been reported, but not yet rectified, resulted in another member of staff accidentally leaving the door unlocked. She cannot be held accountable for the actions of another person - that person should have checked that the door had locked behind them, whether or not there was a fault, because security issues mean that the door must always be locked. That is defence (b).

 

So she is not responsible for the set of circumstances in which a resident left the premises - she played no part in those circumstances and she was not negligent in any way.

 

It was reported to her that a resident had left the premises by a neighbour. She retrieved the resident. That was her job. End of story. 

 

Now the next bit is important - she needs to say this bit word for word... "Given these circumstances there is no way that any reasonable employer could come to a reasonable belief that she was culpable for the circumstances in which the resident left the premises, that she was in any way negligent, or that she failed in her duty of care towards the residents. As such she will vigorously, and to the full extent of the law, defend her position of any action is taken against her for something she did not do".

 

In case you don't understand why that is important, it is a clear and unambiguous statement of intent to file for unfair dismissal. Unless the employer is totally thick, they'll understand that. With any luck, they'll back off.

 

There are two factors you can't control. If they do anything less than a dismissal, then there is no possible method of appealing or removing it from her record. Tribunals only deal with dismissals, not unfair disciplinaries. The other, of greater concern, is this being reported to professional standards. Unlikely, but not impossible. That we would need to deal with when and if it happened.

 

You said that she had already resigned before all this. Does she have another job?

 

And finally - not to labour a point that should be very obvious by now, but in future she needs to be in a union. A union cannot work miracles. They can only operate within the law, and the law isn't on the employees side. But it is far better than having nothing and nobody. Don't need to be told this a second time! Lightening does strike twice! 

[sangie5952]

OK. You should have mentioned her being signed off sick before - I'd have strongly advised her not to do that. I'm afraid that whilst I can understand how stressful she may feel, it can be read by others as evasion and guilt. But what is done is done. 

 

Now this is a judgement call. I can't advise you to do it, nor not to, because I cannot "call" the likely outcome. But I would suggest she consider going to the new employer now and telling them what is happening. If they don't know, there is a risk to that strategy. If they do, or if they later find out, then best for them to know that, from her point of view, she came and told them before they found out by other means. And there is a very high chance that they will find out - an incident of this nature and any disciplinary pending or having taken place OUGHT to be part of a reference or disclosure. Being objective, in this sector employers are supposed to disclose adverse matters for very obvious reasons.

 

If she's going to do this, she needs to create a balanced story. It never does well to slag off your former employer, no matter how warranted. I would suggest the bare bones - there was an incident on XX (date) and describe the incident and her part in it. Then on yy (Date), 3 hours after she handed in her resignation she was informed that an investigation was taking place, and now they are holding a disciplinary and she does not know why because she didn't do anything, but if she is dismissed she fully intends to fight to clear her name because...…. You get the idea? Bare bones, essentials, but don't start slagging off the employer. Leave it to them to fill in the blanks if they need to. 

 

I can't guarantee the outcome on that. Some employers will rapidly back off. Others will take the admission as a sign of good faith and confidence. If it's the former though, she might consider it a lucky escape from an employer who might be as bad! On the other hand, if it's the latter, then she has nothing to worry about.

[sangie5952]

Oh no, absolutely.

 

At this stage she mentions everything! 

I want them to believe that she is totally not threatening them whilst totally threatening them!

So she should accidentally mention all the other failings that she has mentioned to them and which haven't been dealt with.

 

The truth is, and this isn't palatable for you, no employer needs evidence or proof of wrongdoing to dismiss.

They only need reasonable belief of wrongdoing, and I can see that they are going to try to contradict that around other staff saying  that there was nothing wrong with the door. Not that I can see that helps them since she didn't leave it open anyway! But regardless... They will try to show this is her fault.

 

So you want them to fear her.

But that isn't easy to achieve.

 

They need to believe that they are heading for a tribunal (by the way, I should have asked, how long had she worked for this employer?), that she'll whistleblow, or anything else that will make them back off for a quiet life.

It may be bluster, but it needs to be good bluster.

 

All she needs is to leave quietly with nothing on her record, and she needs them to understand that is all she wants to do

- but that if that doesn't happen she will rain hell on them.

This is what a union officer would try to do.

 

Truth to tell, once the law is involved it gets messier than we like, and far too unpredictable.

She's on weak ground.

Employees always are.

But in this case we want them to simply "come to the right decision" without the law being involved. 

 

I'll remember that bit about her spine. I might want to come back to that.

 

 

[sangie5952]

I think what was being suggested was not maintenance but being  more careful about shutting the door and watching residents. 

 

And yes - you provide all evidence and witnesses at a disciplinary - and make it clear she won't be blamed for something she didn't do. 

 

I'm slightly confused by the neighbors statements though. If there were two staff (your wife and one other person) on the shift, and they were out on the garden, then who entered the premises and left the door open? And if they were in the garden already, didn't they see the resident exit the premises? 

[sangie5952]

I think what this demonstrates now is the need to keep to a simple version of events and not over complicate things. I'm now confused as to how many staff were on the premises! Why would it need to be mentioned that staff should not go outside if there's only one person on duty - there were two on duty! 

 

I also think it's important to clarify what their role is - if there are two people on the premises, and one is clearing up outside and one is clearing out wardrobes, doesn't that leave the question of who is supervising clients who appear to be so vulnerable as to be unsafe anywhere if left unsupervised? Surely being unsupervised inside the premises is as unsafe as outside? Why was nobody supervising at all? Was one member of staff more senior than the other? How did nobody notice a missing resident if the door was open when it should have been locked - the door must have been open of the neighbour was able to enter it and have a clear line of sight to the two (?) staff. 

 

I do agree with unclebulgaria that it is important that she have a clear version of events and understands what she is saying. 

 

At this point in time, it is unclear whether any action will be taken against the other member of staff, but in principle, no, there can be many reasons why it is fair in law to treat people differently - if that is indeed the case. Your focus needs to be on your wife's defence. Based on what you are saying here there are potentially holes in her story. That doesn't mean she's done anything wrong, and nobody ever has a perfect story unless they are lying! But she needs to be consistent in what she says and ensure that she does not get muddled. 

[sangie5952]

We do appreciate what you are saying, but simply because someone has 30 years experience does not mean that they don't go on to do something wrong. Equally, making a mistake does not mean that it is a matter that someone should be disciplined over- a hearing is not the same thing as being found responsible for wrongdoing. 

 

People here are trying to help her to manage this situation, but instead of answering our questions you are reiterating that she has 30 years of experience and making unsubstantiated allegations against the employer. These are no doubt true, but they do not form a defence, and it could be questioned as to why, if serious matters of safety and  safeguarding are in question, your wife with 30 years experience didn't whistleblow to the authorities - completely cutting off a persons hair without reason or agreement is an assault on a vulnerable adult, with or without the parents permission (which, if these adults are living independently, is not relevant) ! Equally, if these vulnerable adults are not deemed independent, then if employees are not capable or qualified appropriately as care givers, that is also a reportable matter. You cannot argue it both ways - if the care is this bad, why did she not report her concerns? You do realise that she cannot now easily raise any of these very serious matters because her evidence is now tainted  - it will come across as, and be dismissed as, sour grapes. When in fact just the two items you have disclosed here are so serious as to warrant an immediate safeguarding investigation, and possibly even police intervention. 

 

It is in her interests that she is clear about what her defence is, because the questions we are asking will almost certainly form questions that the employer will ask. Her complaints about the employers conduct will fall on deaf ears in a tribunal - they have no relevance to their deliberations, but if the employer is canny, they will mirror it back on your wife as another question about her professionalism. 

 

Look, I'm going to have to ask. Are you deflecting because she / both staff did miss something? It happens. It doesn't make her a bad person if it did, and it doesn't mean that she ought to be dismissed for it. But if we are to give you the best advice possible, it has to be based on the whole story. 

[sangie5952]

Sorry. When you want to answer the questions asked, let me know. I'm trying to help, but you keep making excuses. It might be better if she posted if you don't know the answers. These are either very vulnerable adults for whom you do double check everything, and you do report instances of abuse, or they are not. But I did not ask whether she double checked things, or whether she should double check things. 

 

Let me try to explain this the simplest way I can. Here are the same "facts" you've told me here.

 

Your wife and a colleague were having a fag break/gossip in the garden when a vulnerable female adult in their care not only walked out of the premises unseen, but a man also walked into the premises, presumably also unseen, by the staff who are employed to ensure the safety and well-being of these vulnerable women. Had it not been for the vigilance of the neighbours this could have been a disaster. You  are relying on a single report of the lock not working in an incident book. The lock was checked and was working perfectly, and every other member of staff reports that the lock was fine. So this is an attempt to deflect attention from the shortcomings of the staff. Your wife, realising that this was a serious incident applied for another job and got it, but couldn't leave fast enough to avoid the investigation. 

 

That version is just as believable as yours!

 

So I am looking for chinks in the employers case that you can exploit to get your wife to a position where she could leave without this being on her record. If they simply wanted to brush it under the carpet they could have waited until she left and then blamed her. They'd have been free and clear to do that, but it wouldn't appear in her record. So they aren't going for a quiet exit. I'm trying to figure out why, and how to change that mindset.

[sangie5952]

Perhaps your wife could post? Then we are not having a third party discussion. 

 

From post 31- 

Quote

 if there are two people on the premises, and one is clearing up outside and one is clearing out wardrobes, doesn't that leave the question of who is supervising clients who appear to be so vulnerable as to be unsafe anywhere if left unsupervised? Surely being unsupervised inside the premises is as unsafe as outside? Why was nobody supervising at all? Was one member of staff more senior than the other? How did nobody notice a missing resident if the door was open when it should have been locked - the door must have been open if the neighbour was able to enter it and have a clear line of sight to the two (?) staff. 

 

Then there is the question of why clear and ongoing abuse had not been reported to the relevant authorities. Mentioning a serious incident "verbally" isn't in compliance with any safeguarding procedures that I come across. And really, tying doors shut to keep vulnerable people in their room? In anybody's book, that is abuse. That failure places her in a difficult position in respect of now making allegations about safeguarding concerns. What she is saying is not remotely unheard of in the "care" sector, so it isn't that I don't believe her. But that doesn't get her out of the woods.

 

 

Have you considered going to the new employer and telling them? Because if they don't intend to withdraw the offer, there's other options which may be open to her. If they do intend to withdraw the offer, that closes down the alternatives.

[sangie5952]

I suspect you are correct, and that a safeguarding issue has been raised formally by the neighbours and is being monitored by the Safeguarding Board. That might though, also, suggest that this is not the first time the neighbours have expressed concerns - perhaps I am wrong, but in my experience external authorities are not the first port of call on a single occasion of concern.

 

I think it's possibly best to see what the new employer says at this juncture. If they are not considering withdrawing the offer of employment, it may be better all around to try another strategy.

[sangie5952]

I'm sorry but this contains urban myth and inaccuracies. There are many, many people who advise that employment references do not contain negative information. This is simply not true. A reference may contain any truthful information, negative or not. And frequently does. Some employers may give basic references only. There is no evidence at all that they are in a majority. In many sectors, a reference of that type would not be accepted.

 

And this is one of those sectors. The employer is legally obliged to disclose any adverse information which impacts on a persons suitability to be employed with vulnerable people. Not only that, but, and I am fairly sure the OP knows this because they have expressed concern that this could end their career, if someone is found guilty of a pertinent offence in relation to vulnerable people, that must also be communicated to the Safeguarding Board and the DBS, who will determine whether that information affects someone's suitability to work with vulnerable people. 

 

Honesty is certainly always the best policy, and this does not mean that the new employer will consider it a barrier to employment. Stuff happens. Sensible employers in this sector know that. But they have to be sensible in their approach and protect themselves and their clients. Because when something goes wrong, it doesn't matter how many years of experience someone has, how well qualified they are, or how it is just the case that "stuff happens" - good or bad or indifferent employer / employee, you can guarantee that the tabloids and many people will be baying for blood. Sometimes that's justified. Often it really isn't, and that is one of the reasons why staff are leaving caring professions in droves. 

[sangie5952]

Well that's plans B and C blown out of the water. There's no alternative. She must go back to the original plan.

 

She should say that there was a reported fault on the door, but I'm afraid that isn't going to be as useful as you hope. The rest of the staff say there wasn't. And, as I said before, something that maybe didn't work on one occasion might still be fine. The one report doesn't prove the fault claimed. 

 

So she needs to be telling a clear and simple story, and she needs to say that she will defend her record to the full extent of the law if the employer finds otherwise. I'm afraid there's no other way. Then if she's found responsible, we'll have to take it from there. I was going to try to avoid going to a disciplinary at all, but the reaction of the new employer means she must clear her name.

[sangie5952]

"As vulnerable as they are making out"? Sorry? They would have to be pretty vulnerable indeed to have secure locks  in place to prevent them from leaving the premises on their own. Are you now trying to claim they aren't vulnerable? That isn't going to have legs! If they were not that vulnerable it would be abuse in itself to prevent them leaving their home wherever they wanted to. 

 

And you need to the careful. Stick to the simple story. Stop elaborating on it. Policies are not written to cover every eventuality. And you know that. On the other hand, if a senior member of staff (and she was senior) with many years experience knows that there is a fault on the door - and she says she did know that- common sense and professional expertise would suggest that she double checked the door since she was the only other person there. Why would she need to be told that? That will be their argument. 

 

"Apparently" isn't evidence. 

 

They are alleging neglect. That is not the same thing as "a mistake" or "an error". Neglect implies a deliberate act or an ommission that could have been, and should have been, managed properly. Her defence is that it wasn't neglect. Another member of staff came in. The door must not have closed properly after her. There was no reason to assume it wouldn't, but in hindsight something similar happened and was reported in the book. She had evidence of that and can prove it. It must be an intermittent fault. She didn't do anything wrong. As soon as it was reported  that the resident had left she went and got her. No embellishments and no excuses. A simple, clear story.

 

Then she can point to her work record, her years of practice without any problems and the fact that she has never done anything wrong and intends to fight for her clean record with every option available to her. Then stop. Don't embellish. Don't threaten. Don't make excuses. 

 

You need to understand that the aim here is to get the employer to back down. It doesn't matter what their motivation is, because that's another thing you can't prove. If at all possible you need to  avoid having to go to an employment tribunal because she might lose. The odds are stacked against her winning. So you need the employer to find that it was not neglect. At best, an unfortunate incident that must not happen again. At worst, an error of judgement on her part. Because even the latter isn't massively damaging to her. Nobody is daft enough to think such errors don't happen. If the employer can find a solution that saves face for them, they are less likely to pursue this to the n-th degree. And I'm doing my best to get her not sacked here. Which is the scenario none of us want.

 

 

 

[sangie5952]

She has evidence. It was lawfully obtained. So yes, she can produce it.

 

No you can't go. The law is clear. Union rep or work colleague only. And I'd also give  you some very good advice anyway - if you were either of those things, you would be the worst person to have in the room. You have no objectivity at all. You'd make things worse! You wouldn't be able to keep quiet, you'd argue about things that you aren't able to verify or that you haven't witnessed, and you couldn't possibly stick to the basics without trying to throw in the kitchen sink. And that would be the best you'd do! Get angry and she's definitely dismissed.... 

 

Your job is a shoulder to cry on and total belief in everything she says even if she's wrong. A good representative isn't either of those things. 

[sangie5952]

She was on the premises lawfully, it's evidence, it's a formal record and she had lawful access to it. What is the grey area?

[sangie5952]

Unfortunately, if she is the most senior person on the premises, then the answer to that could be yes, it's her "fault". But that still doesn't mean that that will be the result. I think the point is that it's impossible to say what will happen, but in the end, the incident itself should not have a happened. It isn't as easy as saying that the door should have locked. Or that it's the employers fault it wasn't fixed, assuming there was something wrong with it. Or that the the member of staff should have checked. Or your wife should have checked. Or that both staff shouldn't have been so busy that they didn't know what was happening with their clients. Or anything else. Something like this is a serious incident and it must be treated as such. But that doesn't mean it will result in her being disciplined. Until she is there isn't really much point rehearsing all these scenarios about blame. They don't add anything to her defence.

[sangie5952]

Yes. Try to relax. I know that's easier said than done. But right now it's best. Come back when a decision is made and then we will take it from there. 

[sangie5952]

Exactly how does this equate to the advice of sit back and don't do anything? No you don't and can't add it to the disciplinary - and you had no right to write on your wife's behalf about anything. You could have made things worse. What exactly have you said to them? You asked - and were told - that you have no right to represent  her. That's in any capacity. They are absolutely right that they shouldn't communicate with you at all. And you should not have written anything, no matter who signed it (and it should never have been you) before the disciplinary meeting.

 

I'm going to say this again - you were not there, your information is second hand and miles off being objective, and you cannot actually say that anything your wife has told you is true! You shouldn't be interfering and you certainly shouldn't be potentially handing them ammunition to make your wife's position worse than it already is.

[sangie5952]

And the fact that it annoys you is why you should not be interfering. You are not objective and you are not helping here. For all you know, at the time of the incident she was shopping in Sainsbury's.  You have only her word for what happened, and your belief in her word is irrelevant. You keep confusing your beliefs and opinions with facts - the same "facts" are open to a range of other interpretations, and absolutely everything that you and she says that it isn't necessary to be said may cast doubt on her version of events. That's the whole point of saying little and keep it simple - not elaborate at will and don't stop talking! The thing is, as we've said before, the employer doesn't need evidence to the standard that a court of law does. They only need a reasonable belief of wrong doing in order to dismiss her, and the more you say the more you are giving them that.

 

And it does not matter whether she agreed that you send the letter or not. You have no legal authority to act on her behalf in this matter. And nobody should have been saying anything. 

 

Please don't say or do anything else to her employer. Not now and not ever. If something needs saying it's her that needs to say it. You can help compose, but you are not her.

[sangie5952]

I realise this is hard on both of you for different reasons, but you just need to stick with the plan. She goes to the disciplinary and she tells an unadorned version of events sticking to the basic facts. The door was locked as normal. Someone came in at XX o'clock. At YY o'clock, when she was doing [a job] she became aware of the fact that a client had left the premises. She went to retrieve the client. Maybe what she then did - but really basic (for example, checked client ok, wrote up report or whatever). She does not say she knows that the door must have not closed properly - unless she checked then she can't say that. If they ask her for an explanation she can only say that she guesses the door may have stuck again after her colleague came in, and she can produce the report from the book as evidence this isn't the first time it has done this. That's the story, and that's the end of the story - she needs to keep it simple. Don't assert anything she can't prove. Neither can they prove anything, so don't give them a chance to extrapolate.

 

To my mind, the biggest loophole in this is that  it appears nobody was actually keeping an eye on the clients, and if they are so vulnerable that they must be kept indoors and locked in, then shouldn't someone have been watching them? As I said before, outside is not the only place that dangers lurk. This must be a weakness in the argument, and since she is the senior member of staff, that may fall down to her.

 

But she needs to try to stay calm and not "over-explain" anything. She needs to deny any neglect ever. She needs to point to her blemish free record. She needs to say that she will defend her record in whatever way she must - and that's all she need say on that, don't start issuing threats. And the less she complicates the rest of it by saying too  much, the more they will hear what she is saying about defending herself however she must. 

 

Then you wait for an outcome and you see what the new employer says. If she's dismissed and the new employer withdraws the offer, then you are left with no alternative - it will have to be a tribunal. But we need to let it play out and see if that can be avoided. As soon as it gets to a tribunal, things get worse and the risks are that she loses. So we want to avoid that if possible. despite everything, if she can get to the point of starting the new job, she walks away and forgets about it. That's what you need to hope for - that she lands the new job. Having one's day in court is never what people think it will be, and there's no satisfaction to be got via that route, even if you win! Trust me, she wants to avoid it if she can.

[sangie5952]

And that's as they should do. If there is a proven case of neglect or abuse that goes to the DBS. They would then have to decide on fitness to undertake this kind of work. Which is why we wait. There's nothing positive that can be done, but multiple ways to screw up!