Suspended over allegation, but not sure whats going on

[halia]

Hope someone can help me here.

2 weeks ago I went into work only to be called aside by my boss and told that I was being suspended because there had been an allegation against me that I had been drunk in work hours.

I defended myself briefly at the time, stating that this wasn't the case but I was in shock tbh. I was sent home straight away and given a letter saying it would take no more than 5 days to investigate this. I wasn't allowed to talk to anyone from work while the investigation was taking place. I know this is normal and I did my best to deal with the "are you OK" queries I got from work colleagues who are also friends.

I sent my boss an email to update him on my workload as I have clients and I wanted to ensure that no-one turned up for an apt when I wasn't there. I did ask if I could send a vetted 'out of office' type email so that people would be told I was off on 'family emergancy' but my boss didn't answer that question.
I also asked for copies of work policies which I have still not received.

The following monday I got a phone call from my boss asking me to come in for a meeting to discuss the result of the investigation.

I offered to go that afternoon but he said tuesday.

At the meeting (which was just me and him) he barraged me with questions, about all kinds of things, he kept firing questions at me, at one point he asked 4 or 5 questions in a row then barked at me when I didn't answer straight away.

He also made ANOTHER accusation that I had gone into the workplace one day when i had been forbidden from going in.
I replied that I had only been in on the day he said I could to pick up my gym kit and that I had been seen by 3 other staff members. He says he saw me on CCTV on another day - but the day/time he said I was at my sons school.

Anyway I got out of the meeting not sure what was happening, he said I still couldn't talk to anyone and took my keys off me. He said he had to talk to someone in HR and then he would get back to me the next day (weds)

I didn't hear anything at all for the rest of that week, I sent 2 emails. One was an updated workload list the second was an email asking (again) for copies of disciplinary policies & procedures and written confirmation of the allegations.

Today I got a very brief email sent at 5pm, saying that he had tried to call me - but he hadn't rung me at home so he must have used my work mobile number which I had agreed to turn off so I COULDN'T be contacted by clients or colleagues.
It didn't say anything except to call him on his mobile.

I'm really confused and worried, I dont' want to talk to him without anyone there again, or to do a phone call because of the way he intimidated me when I saw him last.

Help?

(oh I don't have a union and I've been told I can't talk to HR because they are supporting him btw)

"BeenBeta - it sounds like you have had a bad experience with HR!"

BeenBeta is correct, my brother worked in HR for many years (has moved into recruitment at an agency though now), they're not all robots and will have sympathy if you're being treated unfairly.

But, above all, HR employees are NOT there as some unbiased 3rd party between a bullied employee and a boss. They are hired and paid to protect the interests of the company and ensure the law is complied with. THAT's all. Don't think that they are there to mediate, they're not - unless, as already mentioned, it would help the organisation indirectly e.g. smoothing out personality conflicts to ensure a stable working environment.

They're colleagues, and you may drink coffee with them, or know them outside work, but their objectives is NOT to protect YOU.

If they don't put the long term interests of the organisation above the wellbeing of staff (even though these usually go hand in hand), they aren't doing their job properly.

I have no idea why people argue this issue...

OP, I hope you're okay. Your boss sounds like a bully.

If I were you, I'd find out all you can about procedures, your rights, what the law says about your situation, because I'd be surprised if he can get away with the things he'd done. Also, any contact you have with him should be official now IMO- take someone with you to meetings, keep any letters/emails.

Also, regarding the drunk thing, why would he think that? What proof does he have? He can't sack you just because of office whispers!

I am not in HR (though I am very heavily involved in HR strategy where I work) and the comments about HR departments are sort of right, but the conclusions being inferred from them are not.

Yes, when it comes to disputes, an HR dept is there to protect the organisation, and not to simply represent and defend staff.

However, that does not mean that the HR department will, by default, 'takes sides' with the manager in any manager/employee dispute. Doing that would in many instances increase the risk of legal action and not reduce it. Where the manager is in the wrong it is always in the HR's best interests to fix the wrong because that is what best protects the organisation.

The position is unfortunately totally different in smaller and owner-manager organisations. And to be honest i am not sure about the quality of HR in some smaller charities. But better to try and see what happens than to simply assume the manager will be protected (which would astonish me in this particular example)

But frgr who is arguing the issue? I'm genuinely confused.

You point out that HR are not an unbiased 3rd party, are not there to mediate and are paid by the company to protect the interests of the company.

Perhaps I haven't read the thread closely enough but is anyone actually saying anything different?

BeenBeta is right to say that HR work for the organisation but wrong to say that they are useless because they will automatically support the manager whatever he/she is doing.

Fortunately most HR professionals are not actually completely stupid, so will realise that ensuring a fair procedure is followed is in the interests of both parties. They will not just support the manager whatever he/she is doing because to do so would be foolhardy and would place the organisation at risk. But if you don't talk to them about what's happening so they know when procedure isn't being followed, they can't do anything about it.

Squiffy from what the OP says HR is on a national level so should (ime of large charity HR ) be half decent.

Flowery,

No they won't. It totally depends on the seniority of the manager in question and whether he/she has any say in HR's renumeration.

HR will advise managers on what they can or cannot get away with. Of course, if a company has a good ethos at very senior level, and it is a mid level manager, HR may be of use. However, if not, don't expect anything from them.

Sorry, who won't what?

HR won't be of any help.

There are ineffectual people in HR as there are in any area of a business. Until OP contacts hers, she won't know! Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

OP - hope your meeting went well today and that the issue is resolved. Even if this goes away, keep records as it sounds like your boss is a bully and has behaved appallingly and he may do it again.

Please let us know how you got on.

On what basis do you say that? Have you met the HR person in question?!

Why would they think it would be a good idea for the organisation if the manager in question continues to not bother with procedure?

Speaking personally I am also baffled at the notion that how senior a manager is would make any difference to me when advising them, and the remuneration issue is also confusing me. Do you think HR people will say 'go ahead do whatever you like and don't bother with procedure' to managers who sit on a remuneration committe in the hope they might get a better pay rise? It's a genuine question, I'm confused.

Sorry x-post Poogles that was to larry

Flowery,

Yes, I do think they would. I worked in the City for a foreign banks for many years and saw HR bonuses directly proportional to how much they supported unreasonable managers in removing people they did not like on the flimsiest excuse.

Each firm has an ethos. A company with a poor ethos will have an HR department which endorses that ethos, and vice versa. HR departements are brilliant at making managers pay lip service to procedures, which is not the same as actually following them in a meaningful way. It is just about having a plausible document trail if it ever goes to tribunal.

And, for most employees, the cost of paying them off is cheaper than genuinely engaging with their grievance. Once an employee has been outrageously treated by a senior manager, the only thing that works is proper legal representation.

I'm with you flowery! Larry - HR advise on employment law. If you can't get away with it they will tell you. Not going to look good in an appraisal - 'why did you let a manager get away with breaking employement law and ending us up in a tribunal? Oh, because he said he would give me a pay rise. Right, you must be the best HR person ever so have a rise and promotion!'

Please!!!!

Poogles,

Who appraises the head of HR?

And Poogles,

In my experience it rarely gets to tribunal. Big firms are happy to pay and sign a compromise agreement.

larry Imho your experience would appear to not be the 'norm' thank goodness

Larry - I agree there are companies who pay off rather than deal with the issue. They then get hit with loads of claims and costs as they are known to pay out. Lots of companies however do not do this. If you look at the increase in tribunals I think you will find that the increase in numbers suggests the pay offs are not happening as much.

A charity will have to justify where they are spending their money so I doubt they will be too quick to offer a compromise agreement.

Bethjeff,

I can only speak for my (ex) industry and my own and colleagues' experiences.

However, I do think that if a company has a good ethos, the HR department will reinforce it and vice versa.

larry
I've never worked in the banking industry but once had the misfortune to sit in on a meeting in that industry involving HR. What I saw there truly shocked me and was completely out of the range of what would be considered 'normal' in other workplaces.

I agree it is all about the ethos, and I see no reason that the OP should expect anything like your 'worst case scenario'

Muddleduck,

You could well be right BUT, if there were a functioning and ethical PR dept, would a manager have really acted as hers did without consulting the HR dept and getting proper advice?

thanks for all the input folks, I didn't have a meeting today (that was the one last week) I have had one phone call and email asking me to ring him but as I explained earlier I felt that after the way he behaved in our last face-face meeting I want all communication to be written.

As far as i can see at this point there are 4 options for why he wants me to ring him
1: He will tell me the allegations have been proved unfounded and I can come back to work, but in that case I do need to have written confirmation of this.
2: there is going to be a disciplinary meeting and he is contacting me to advise me of the date, again I have to get written notification of this not just a phone call.
3: The investigation is STILL ongoing and there are further questions he wants to ask me, in which case he needs to do it in a meeting and email is the best way to do so to ensure that the time of meeting etc is logged. (if it is this one then I won't agree to meet him on my own again)
4: he wants to talk to me about my current workload cos something has come up, in which case email is STILL the best way to ensure that any information is clear.

From my POV, whatever he wants to say he can put it in writing. I'm not exposing myself to any potential accusations that I said X,or admitted Y on a phone call. (plus tbh it would upset me far too much to try and talk to him right now)

I will try and talk to HR, I do think there's a risk that they will be of very little use - I know they are there to minimise liability but there's also the political angle of whether they should back a local manager who is 'going places' or a p/t disabled female worker with a kid.

Give HR a chance! A part-time disabled female worker with a kid who has been bullied wins tribunal is not going to do the charity any good.

They will make sure that the manager follows a fair process which is what you are entitled to. Without raising a grievance about this, you may find that you lose some of your rights to riase it in tribunal.

Log your objection to the way you are being treated!

well ACAS has just told me that whilst I can ask him to communciate by email, if he says NO i have to talk to him by phone. Acas also said if he wants to have another investigatory meeting he can do so without witnesses, and that I can only take a work colleague (impossible because there's only 4 of us and the other two are involved in this) or a union rep into a disciplinary meeting.

Finally they said that he can give me verbal notification of a disciplinary meeting and then simply follow it up with a letter, but that the verbal communication counts as the 'notice' even if i don't agree.

Sorry all but i'm feeling like I should just bow out now

Please don't. He still needs evidence that you were drunk at work to take any disciplinary action. If you weren't drunk, he won't have any!

Halia,

No need to be bullied. There is still plenty you can do.

Where did this allegation come from? Why would someone make an untrue allegation about you?

It would have to be an incredibly stupid HR department not to think that protecting the rights of a part time disabled mother might be sensible. Please ring them. At the very least they will be able to send you the disciplinary procedure.