Disciplinary Hearing At Work

[Guest absolutezero]

+1

Seems only reasonable that the employee should be reimbursd for attending a meeting at a time scheduled solely for the benefit of the employer.

Absolutely. The ACAS code of conduct is a good read too.

[SNACR]

As a former Union Rep, successful self litigant & lay rep before the Employment Tribunal I would agree with Absolute Zero. Whilst there is no harm in asking the employee, if they say no I wouldn't push it any further

Typically employees will be suspended on full pay prior to a hearing and the hearing is part of a formal grievance process. Given if they want the hearing re-scheduled the employer will have to continue paying them in the interim tribunals take a dim view of pretty much any d1cking around with non-attendance of the hearing.

The tribunal itself wouldn't re-schedule at the behest of the employee bringing a case and it generally expects employees to treat the employer's own grievance procedure no less seriously.

[SNACR]

+1

Seems only reasonable that the employee should be reimbursd for attending a meeting at a time scheduled solely for the benefit of the employer.

As previous, typically they're suspended on full pay. It's not for the benefit of the employer, a disciplinary hearing is for the benefit of the employee. If the employee does not attend you can rule in their absence.

Generally, most employees are as happy with out of hours disciplinary hearings, away from staff and customers, as employers are.

Also, it's rare for the representative they bring to be a work colleague - as most, rightly, see people embroiled in disciplinary hearings/employment tribunals as toxic. Typically they end up bringing a friend or family member instead - it looks reasonable to allow this but, I'm pretty sure you don't have to though. This again means out of hours is better for the employee as their family/friend representative may well work.

[Kurt Barlow]

Typically employees will be suspended on full pay prior to a hearing and the hearing is part of a formal grievance process. Given if they want the hearing re-scheduled the employer will have to continue paying them in the interim tribunals take a dim view of pretty much any d1cking around with non-attendance of the hearing.

The tribunal itself wouldn't re-schedule at the behest of the employee bringing a case and it generally expects employees to treat the employer's own grievance procedure no less seriously.

I think in most cases disciplinary hearings do not result in suspension or sackings. From my experience the majority result in written warnings of varying degrees. Start suspending people for minor albeit disciplinary matters and that is good way to end up in a Tribunal on a Constructive dismissal charge

Your approach may work with non unionised shop floor grunts. Try it with people higher up the food chain

BTW - I have never known the Tribunal to meet on a Saturday.

[Kurt Barlow]

As previous, typically they're suspended on full pay. It's not for the benefit of the employer, a disciplinary hearing is for the benefit of the employee. If the employee does not attend you can rule in their absence.

Generally, most employees are as happy with out of hours disciplinary hearings, away from staff and customers, as employers are.

Also, it's rare for the representative they bring to be a work colleague - as most, rightly, see people embroiled in disciplinary hearings/employment tribunals as toxic. Typically they end up bringing a friend or family member instead - it looks reasonable to allow this but, I'm pretty sure you don't have to though. This again means out of hours is better for the employee as their family/friend representative may well work.

Good idea. My Former Secretary in LG got made redundant a month after me. They wouldn't even let me represent her at the Internal hearing and as such she had to face down Directors, Managers and HR Witches on her own. It cost them though as I represented her at the Tribunal and she won £22,000. The Council's legal costs were £45,000. Ours where Ink and paper, the tribunal paid our travelling costs

[SNACR]

I think in most cases disciplinary hearings do not result in suspension or sackings. From my experience the majority result in written warnings of varying degrees. Start suspending people for minor albeit disciplinary matters and that is good way to end up in a Tribunal on a Constructive dismissal charge

Your approach may work with non unionised shop floor grunts. Try it with people higher up the food chain

BTW - I have never known the Tribunal to meet on a Saturday.

What you've said underlines the suspicion I have that employment tribunals are mainly designed for the worst offender on staff treatment, the public sector. It then gets inflicted on the private sector. My guess would be that in the private sector it's pretty much getting towards the dismissal stage once disciplinary hearings start to become a feature as, unlike the public sector, it can't afford to indulge in filling the day with staff performance meetings and disciplinary hearings.

What's needed for local governent staff grievances becomes enshrined in law for everyone and it's how you end up with the ludicrous scenario of a florist who employs a single assistant, and catches them pinching from the till, having to have a disciplinary hearing with them (closing the shop if it's during working hours) in order to avoid an unfair dismissal claim.

[Tonkers]

I am very glad of all the procedures laid out, having recently been fired without any procedure whatsoever on made up allegations.

The procedures seem sensible to me, and laid out to resolve issues. I am all the way to tribunal now and the ex-employer has still not produced any evidence, in fact he just added another spurious accusation with no evidence which I thought was quite mad really.

It is quite a heavy thing to go through.

I would not have attended on a Saturday and would have insisted on working hours, however, I didn't mind who knew about it.

[ccc]

Signed bits of paper aen't the be-all and end-all of everything. The problem you are dealing with is that an employee is always going to be in the weaker position and if anything arises in the future there will always be the potential for the accusation that they were pushed into it..

I don't think much will come of it, and I can't seem to find any precident on it, but it's always good to cover all your bases.

And if that were to happen a signed and witnessed bit of paper saying the opposite is not going to help your case....

Of course it is. And the very fact the person knows they signed this bit of paper would make it very unlikely they would bring that subject up.

Youa re of course correct it is not the be all and end all. I am sure you know far more about this than me. However it will surely be beneficial to get this all down on record in case anything doesd= pop up.

PS - I assume you think this person is going to kick up a stink ?

[MrPin]

My feeling (and that of my friend who's organising the hearing) is that this may be seen as taking the piss and may come back to haunt them as it could be seen to be pressurizing the staff member into a corner. The staff member is being asked to come in on a non-work day but, like I say, there are good reasons.

It sounds like they are takign the piss. A disciplinary hearing is where the staff member (rightfully or not) is expected to ritually consume excrement in a humiliating manner. If you can get him to wear a clown outfit aswell, you are half way there!

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

It's due to the nature of the business which I can't go into here. There are genuine reasons behind why the company has asked the meeting to be held on a non work day and isn't related to p1ssing the employee about. It is also, apparently, not uncommon for this type of industry to do this type of thing on a weekend it's just that it sounded a bit weird to me.

And I suspect that it would sound a bit weird to an employment tribunal, too. Ultimately, if the employee decided to call his bosses' bluff, I guess it's the tribunal that'll have the casting vote as to whether the reasons were justified or not.