Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Is this normal (Gross Misconduct)

37 replies

FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 18:12

(Theoretically)

Someone has been handed official documents advising of a possible GM. They have provided a comprehensive report in a bid to avoid an interview.

HR have advised they wish to get the individual in for an interview.......

Is it normal for HR to say to a 3rd party (middle man): We want to get her in for an interview but I'm a bit busy next week. Can you ask if she is available w/c......let me know and I will book her in.

Surely as part of a formal GM investigation, you are TOLD the date of your interview, not be able to pick and choose??!

OP posts:
HappenstanceMarmite · 05/02/2021 18:16

Well it’s no good telling her an interview date if she may not be available that day is it?

TomatoesAreFruit · 05/02/2021 18:17

If there is union representation involved, sometimes the organisation may try to fit around their limited availability so agreeing on a date before sending out an invite is a pragmatic approach.

The language used by HR seems informal considering the seriousness if the matter.

Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 18:19

@HappenstanceMarmite

Well yes, but I would have thought an official written request to attend an interview should be offered with a set day (they would know what days she is working).

OP posts:
Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 18:20

@TomatoesAreFruit

No union rep involved. The middle person is the lady's 2nd line manager.

OP posts:
PositiveLife · 05/02/2021 20:04

IME it depends on the exact circumstances. For example if the person being invited to an investigation meeting is a 'witness' rather than someone accused of GM, then they'll try to fit it in at a time that suits everyone. If it was someone accused and suspended pending the outcome, they'd be told when to attend (and can reschedule once to allow someone to accompany them I think)

Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 20:09

@PositiveLife

The person is the accused and is still at work.

OP posts:
ArosGartref · 05/02/2021 20:11

That seems normal and polite to me. I wouldn't expect an investigation into gross misconduct to be completed without an interview with the individual themselves. Why are they trying to avoid it?

PositiveLife · 05/02/2021 20:15

[quote FirstladyKirkman]@PositiveLife

The person is the accused and is still at work.[/quote]
If they're still working, I think at my company they would try to accommodate their availability so as not to impact too much on day to day work.

DogsSausages · 05/02/2021 20:18

Its HR that cannot make an interview next week, they are just asking if she is available a different week, all parties need to be available and I think it's only fair. She is not picking and choosing a date, she might have been available next week but HR are not. Just because she is working does not mean she has no other responsibilities on her day off. Has she been offered the opportunity to take a rep with her.

Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 20:22

@ArosGartref

They aren't trying to avoid it! They have given a date and are awaiting a response. I've been asked to be their "hand hold", but I question the way it's being handled. Considering its quite a serious allegation, it all seems a bit too familiar/unprofessional/casual.

OP posts:
Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 20:25

Also to add... Apart from the initial this is what you are being accused of.... There has been no official contact made since then. There was no date given for the report to be in by. It was picked out of the sky when the lady pressed for one, and no official invite to an interview, just an email to her line manager as already mentioned.

OP posts:
DogsSausages · 05/02/2021 20:26

What line of work is she in, has she received all the right documents, allegations, her rights etc,

DogsSausages · 05/02/2021 20:29

Are you her line manager, was the email addressed to you

Bakeachocolatecake2day · 05/02/2021 20:29

I'd say with GM its more normal to put people on paid leave leading up to the disciplinary then give them a proposed date in writing which they can accept or request to amend. If they are not on paid leave I'd assume they aren't going to be sacked.

As its a formal process it'll all get done in writing, to prove a paper trail.

They'll be allowed a witness (union rep or colleague usually)

Spillanelle · 05/02/2021 20:30

I’m not really sure what your issue is to be honest, that HR are being too accommodating in asking what date will work for her?

Redbirds · 05/02/2021 20:32

@FirstladyKirkman

Also to add... Apart from the initial this is what you are being accused of.... There has been no official contact made since then. There was no date given for the report to be in by. It was picked out of the sky when the lady pressed for one, and no official invite to an interview, just an email to her line manager as already mentioned.
All the more reason to have union support; especially as you describe it as a "quite a serious allegation"
EachBleachBlairTrump · 05/02/2021 20:32

What stage is this? I've carried out a lot of similar formal discipline and capability processes as the line manager, the investigating officer and the chair. We would always make sure the time of a hearing was suitable for the person being investigated, as if it ends up in dismissal you don't want anything to jeopardise that; 'i was stressed, the meeting was at a terrible time for me, my medication makes me drowsy first thing in the morning, I wasn't thinking straight because I should've been taking my granny to the hospital' etc.

EachBleachBlairTrump · 05/02/2021 20:33

For gross misconduct the person would usually have been suspended pending investigation though

SunsetSenora · 05/02/2021 20:35

@ArosGartref

That seems normal and polite to me. I wouldn't expect an investigation into gross misconduct to be completed without an interview with the individual themselves. Why are they trying to avoid it?
Exactly right. HR would not have done their job without an interview. But the organizing through another person is weird, unless the person being interviewed has asked for someone else to be present.
Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 20:43

No suspension.
Public sector.
No union rep, for reasons unknown to me.
I'm not her line manager, just a colleague.

I'm not suggesting she shouldn't have an interview, it just seems very informal for such a serious allegation 🤷‍♀️

OP posts:
ArosGartref · 05/02/2021 20:43

You said they have provided a comprehensive report in a bid to avoid an interview.

Have I misunderstood?

Original poster
FirstladyKirkman · 05/02/2021 20:48

Yes. In their original letter they were advised that a report may negate the need for an interview. Sorry.... Just got whst you were getting at now! Apologies!!

OP posts:
DogsSausages · 05/02/2021 20:50

If she is not in a union she should contact ACAS, attending a disciplinary panel is very stressful and she needs to know that they have followed the correct procedure, it has to be fair and impartial. Maybe she may have been given an alternative to suspension like moving departments . A lot depends on what the allegation is.

DogsSausages · 05/02/2021 20:55

Does she belong to a registered profession

Updatemate · 05/02/2021 20:55

It's not a court summons

Swipe left for the next trending thread