Please help me find the perfect word to shut down HR

[FromTheBubblegumTree]

I have agreed to help HR with their investigation (this is not a place where I work). They are sending me emails with a rude 'you will do what we say and comply with our processes because we are higher than you' tone. They have completely missed the point that I am not one of their employees and am doing them a favour. I owe them nothing.

I am in communication with someone else from the company. I want to say something along the lines of.

I am happy to help HR. I am not happy for HR to bully me.

Bully is too strong. I just want them to wind their neck in!

Please help. (I am rubbish at writing corporate emails)

If part of your involvement is to write a report, then make sure you provide examples of where HR have been opaque and quote from their own emails. If they are not following process then it will all come out in the wash, just ignore the tone and plough on. They are probably doing it to intimidate you off, but then you can add this in your final report.

If they're trying to send stuff out in your name that you haven't approved, write to the people involved, their manager, and all suitable people above them in the hierarchy to make it clear that this must not happen and that, if it does, you will have no choice but to tell the investigator and show them the correspondence. Ask for confirmation that this has not happened to date and an absolute undertaking that it will not happen in future, and for copies of all their communications with the investigator or others in relation to your evidence and/or reports. If necessary, make a formal subject access request under the Data Protection Act.

You'd get far more appropriate responses if you did.

There's no need to name people, organisations, or even the type of organisation, service or business involved.

You could say something like, "An employee of (or the organisation itself), carried out an act which harmed member(s) of the public (or its own employees/agents/customers) and I've been asked to provide my professional opinion on the scenario, or tell what I know as a witness to it", or whatever.

As it is, it's impossible for anyone to know what angle you should be coming from in berating "HR" over their attitude towards your assistance.

Alternatively, refer them to Pressdram's response filed in the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971) which should very clearly, and succinctly, inform them of your views towards their tone and put an end to any snotty correspondence.

There are usually policies and procedures for investigations including the wording of all letters or emails. It's to ensure the investigation is conducted in a fair and proper matter. I'm not sure what your "helping" consists of. If you are a witness you would be contacted by the investigation officer using the standard format letter. If you are an expert then again, the same. If you are conducting the investigation you need to be on top of the policy and procedure and follow it to the letter. If you are supporting someone under investigation your role and responsibilities should be clearly set out in the policies and procedures. If their emails seem hectoring it may be related to timescales. Again they are usually really prescriptive timelines because it wouldn't be very fair for people to have things hanging over them for ages.

So is it basically that you have seen staff mistreating patients and now the hospital/care home are trying to put words in your mouth about what you saw? If so, I think 1) asking to see the statements they are attributing to you as you've done sounds sensible; 2) I'd say you want to pass any additional evidence/answers to Qs directly to the investigator; 3) I would be clear that I see this as a serious matter where if it hasn't already happened then there should be a report made to the appropriate regulating/overseeing (NICE, nursing and midwifery council etc).

HR are telling her what to do/say she's supposed to be independent in respect of the investigation.

what is HR?

Reply with domething like this:

I appreciate the opportunity to assist HR with the investigation. However, I’d like to clarify that I am not an employee of your organization, and I am providing my help as favour.
I believe it's important for our communications to reflect a collaborative spirit. I am willing to assist, but I would appreciate a more respectful approach in our interactions.
Thank you for your understanding.

Intimidate ?

It’s not an unreasonable request but it’s not necessarily one the other party has to comply with. It depends on the type of process involved and why they handed over documents.

It sounds like the organisation have engaged an external investigator to undertake work on their behalf. The organisation would give the investigator the case file with all the relevant information. Provided the correct information governance is in place to share the information they hold with their investigator there isn’t a point of challenge on the way it is shared. There will be a time and place to challenge the evidence they provided but not at this point.

It is very unclear what your role is, but it sounds like they have told you that you don’t have the standing or grounds to challenge what they have shared with the investigator or how they have gone about it. And you don’t have the standing to insist on checking it before it is shared. That’s probably correct even if you object to their tone in responding to your complaint.

By bringing in an external investigator they have brought in expertise to act on their behalf to get this sorted out on their terms. They probably won’t want it to escalate but they might not be scared of it does. Even if it does escalate you won’t get the opportunity to vet what they disclose before it is disclosed. The other side can challenge it or present conflicting evidence.

How do you know the OP is bound by confidentiality? If she doesn't work for the company she isn't and she isn't bound by HR processes either. Only tribunal processes, if it gets that far.

If I witnessed a criminal offence I wouldn't be bound by confidentiality unless there was a court order making the proceedings confidential.