Dodgy misconduct outcome

[Holamum]

I'm doing some contract work and have come across something that I feel is very wrong. I have little experience (but good academic knowledge) but want to impress and get a permanent job.

One of the employees (don't want to say which profession, let's say they are called X) has a very serious complaint against them. Contemporaneous evidence and statements were taken at the time. Then they felt a misconduct interview was necessary. X managed to get pre-interview disclosure of all the evidence. During the misconduct interview X seems to have changed their story quite a bit so that it makes them sound more favourable.

I had to check the misconduct outcome and check everything. The managers have taken the answers from the misconduct interview (changed story) rather than the first statement X gave, and have concluded that they are not going to take any action against X.

I disagree with the outcome because the changed story is not backed up by the contemporaneous evidence, including X's own first statement which is very detailed and doesn't mention half the things X says in the misconduct interview.

Is changing a story in the misconduct interview common? Do I let X get away with it? Or shall I just agree with the Managers' decision so as to not get on their wrong side? Or will they appreciate my honesty?

If you want to impress, first thing to do is stop discussing the matter on Mumsnet!

Well it depends. Are you senior to the Manager who made the decision to keep X?

If so then by all means raise your concerns. If, however, the Manager is above you or the department is not relevant to you then how is it any of your business?

Sorry! I haven't identified anyone/anything so I assumed it would be ok to discuss...

TBF, I don't see how you have outed yourself or broken any confidentialities in your OP either.

The Manager gave me the task of checking it for them, so that's why I'm involved, and just unsure how to respond. I'm worried if my honest opinion would embarrass the manager or if it would please her?

In that case, maybe play innocent and go with the "please could you explain this to me as you were there at the time? The outcome does not appear to match the evidence/original statements and I was wondering if that is OK?".

At the end of the day though, the Manager made the decision to keep the employee so they must have made that decision for a reason. I would definitely try to word it so that it doesn't sound like you are 'pointing out their error' IYSWIM.

Without giving away too much, did the alleged misconduct relate to other people? E.g. in a hospital, school or care setting? Could the person in question be creating a risk to others by remaining in their position? If the answer to any of that is yes, then that does change things rather.

You have been asked to reveiw so that's what you do.

Make a bullet point summary of the changes and put at the bottom that the 2nd interview was used. Attach both copies.

Its for her to decide what to do next. You are simply providing the facts for decision making.

Whether the outcome is something you approve of is not required unless she asks you outright your opinion, which you give off the record.

Whatever is decided, keep quiet and don't say anything to anyone. You have been entrusted to look at confidential information so already you have gained a level of trust, so follow that up with impartial review.

Good luck!

Thanks - that sounds like a plan.

Without saying one way or another, if you can explain how an answer of 'yes' could change things it will be very helpful...

Thanks again.

Then you could add some solutions to flag up or prevent such a thing happening again, and perhaps a recommendation that x is monitored or another check put in place of their work concerning that particular situation. Or they are moved out of the role for instance managed out or sideways.

You could say this is to protect the company from future issues and avoid high risk insurance claims or complaints as there is now a history of this and they must be seen to be changing things and putting procedures in place, as there is now a history of knowledge of the problem and handling it correctly for now and future is paramount.

It is very common for someone to chage their story between the initial investigation and the hearing when they've had all the evidence to review in Advance. Sometimes it's genuine (remembered something, found emails etc) but mostly it's because they've had time to think up a story that fits the evidence, and to collude with other witnesses.

I would normally rely more on the first statement.

The process you've described (investigation - disclosure of evidence - disciplinary hearing) is standard good practice.

The purpose of the investigatory stage is to gather information in order to decide whether it's appropriate to proceed further.

Failure to disclose all the evidence to be relied on before the hearing would be poor practice. In a fair process the employee needs to be fully aware of the case to be answered so as to properly defend themselves.

If there are glaring inconsistencies between statements made at the hearing and those acquired during the investigation the proper time to raise this is during the disciplinary hearing.

When deciding what, if any, penalty is to be issued; reliance should be based on matters raised at the disciplinary hearing.