Friend asked to meeting to discuss complaints raised by a colleague who’s ‘after her job’ not allowed a representative present.

[Patchworkvest]

Hope you can help with this one please.
I’ve NC to protect ‘Isobel’

My friend ‘Isobel’ (aged 56) has received a letter inviting her to a meeting on Wednesday to discuss two complaints raised about her by a colleague.

The two complaints are outlined in the letter, along with the date the ‘alleged matters’ took place.

Isobel didn’t do complaint one (definitely a company matter regarding important paperwork and a ‘forged’ signature) but has admitted to complaint two (she gave a pain relief pill of hers to another colleague to take at work, a prescription pill rather than an aspirin for example)

The letter doesn’t say who has made the complaint but Isobel is sure it’s Rob (aged 29) as she remembers Rob refusing to sign a document recently and having to leave it for a manager to look into.

Also, Rob has been actively seeking to get promoted to a role the same as Isobel’s and Isobel feels sure that he’s trying to get her fired so that he can have her job.

The reason I pointed out the age difference is because Isobel has worked for the company for 25 years and her contract allows her higher hourly pay, more holidays better pension and generally a better deal than people like Rob, who came to the company 5 years ago on minimum wage, holidays etc.
And of course Isobel would be up shit creek to lose her job at 56.

Rob often says in earshot of Isobel that he could easily do a better job than her and that even with a pay rise on promotion would be much cheaper for the company than her.

He has also recently managed to get the ‘stand in’ position of Isobel’s job on her days off.

In light of the above I suggested to Isobel that she joins a union (why she’s not in one yet I don’t know) and has representation at the meeting.
She replied that the letter says she is not entitled to bring any other person to this meeting.

I’m not sure whether that’s fair or legal?

Any advice for Isobel? (besides that she’s an idiot for giving that pill!)

Both are serious.
The second for me would be a job dismissal. She could have given her the wrong dose, or an allergic reaction or a drug addict etc. The one and only time I have given a medication prescribed for me to a colleague was a colleague who like me suffers with serious allergic reactions. We both had epi pens -hers was in the office -mine in my pocket. She started her reaction - I jabbed her with my epi-pen but we are specifically told at work to use the nearest epipen. They were identical -because we had compared them earlier -except mine had a longer date to expiry. I immediately saw my line manager and explained what I had done -and gave her my 'used' epi-pen -but that was the first and only time I every have and ever would have done it. If the colleague had an allergic reaction to the medication or crashed her car -they have taken medication that is only available on prescription effectively by a dealer (albeit she wasn't paid) . In this case I think your friend needs to say I made a hugh error of judgement Mrs A has medication for Y condition - I had seen her take it before for headache or whatever and I offered her some of mine / or she asked for it and I gave it to it -but it was a huge gross error of judgement etc Did the friend ask or did she offer? Did the friend take this medication? Why is your friend prescribing meds for herself and then giving them to others? Argh. Too many questions.

Who said her friend was prescribing meds for herself

I thought the OP posted that

I dont think so. It was prescribed to her not by her

My apologies

@ChicCroissant she works in a hospital, not in a job where she’d have access to patient medications.
The pill was one prescribed to herself.

I read this as the colleague had prescribed the medicaition to herself.

It's still an issue if she didn't do the prescription but it's less of an issue that if you are prescribing yourself or friends/ family something

Son. I so agree with you. Thats why I would want to know if it was the same person. I would also want to know why anyone would need to forge a signature. If its a genuine document the writer would sign it unless there was an issue and they denied signing it and said someone else did. Or it was spam or untrue and they are trying to locate the source.It doesnt make sense to me.

This is an investigatory interview at this stage. She won't find out who made the allegation or exactly what was said, she will be told that she is being interviewed in respect of a serious allegation and then asked questions which might give her (probably will give her) ideas about what has been said. Other people will be being interviewed too, she won't find out who, but if she is certain about the incidents in question then she can make suggestions as to who else they can interview. There should be a note-taker in the interview, both the interviewer and the note-taker should be completely independent of the situation and may well be from elsewhere in the NHS.

She should answer honestly but she does not need to volunteer anything, she can simply answer what is asked. If she is unsure at any time, she can ask for the question to be re-phrased before answering.

After all interviews have been held, the lead investigator will make a recommendation as to whether the matter should progress to a disciplinary. If it does, that is the point where being accompanied by a colleague or ideally union becomes useful.

She should not consider raising a grievance before being exonerated of all complaints, and even then I would not advise it as it smacks of sour grapes and rather marks the card of the aggrieved party.

[Been there twice, exonerated twice.]

If there is no case to answer and someone is just stirring it seems unfair if they get away with it. It must be hard to trust anyone afterwards.

My director has given me a painkiller before that he has on prescription. He offered it but surely it was my choice to take it? He’s a director in a hospital.

Hopefully they will sense if something smells and doesn't seem quite right and do stay independent and unbiased. You hear about managers being seen to be doing something. What happened to the old days when allegations were dealt with at the time.

The biggest issue here is the prescription medication she gave to a colleague. It's illegal.
Unfortunately if she did do that, unless her employers are extremely lax, it's a very serious incident. The reason she won't be allowed representation in this meeting is it will be informal to get her side of the story. If it was to go to a disciplinary then she should be entitled to have her own witness in that hearing.

I didn't know it was illegal to give someone your pills but have just looked it up. I bet loads of people give their meds to friends and family with the best intentions. Scary.

@happyhammy
I don't think it's common knowledge, I remember when I found out I was shocked. I don't think it's often acted upon, as usually it's just a pill here or there. I suppose it's illegal due to selling drugs perhaps.

Maybe. Tramadol is a controlled drug which might make people think it must be drug abuse.

Tramadol is a schedule 2 controlled drug which you have sign a separate part of the prescription for. Technically by giving a colleague a tablet it is illegal supply of a controlled drug. This maybe the angle they are going.