How much notice to give for a disciplinary meeting

tatli_lokma

Hi Folks,

just wondering, in regards to issuing an employee with notice of a disciplinary meeting, is there any set amoutn of notice you need to give? Just wondering if you must give the notice in writing a minimum of 24/48 hrs/ 7 days before the meeting etc?

the reason I ask is because a friend has been issued with a notice of a disciplinary meeting tomorrow morning. They were given exactly 24hrs notice. The manager then stood over her asking her to sign the form regarding her right to have a witness present. She felt pressured into signing it. She has since phoned me on her lunchtime and I advised her to let HR know this ASAP and to arrange someone to attend with her. The problem is, it is now very short notice for her to get someone tomorrow. I can't go because I don't work at that company so I wouldn't be a permissable witness.

She asked HR to be present, but no one is available at that time tomorrow. As I say, it is quite short notice.

I know in our company our grievance procedure states employees will be given 2 working day's notice but the meeting can be held sooner if both parties are in agreement.

My mate doesn't have her contract of employment with her, so can't check it out til she gets home. I feel like this is very bad form as she was kind of ambushed with the notice to attend the meeting and then stood over to sign it. She is on holidays next week, so the meeting is literally 1 hour before she finishes for a weeks hol. If I were the manager I would have given more notice, so that the employee could go home, think it over, consult the contract etc.

I have advised her to try and reschedule the meeting, stating that in order to prepare for it she would like to consult her contract and also would like to arrange for someone to accompany her.

I have also advised her to write up a statement tonight of her version of events, and stick to that. She gets quite tongue tied when nervous and sometimes ends up saying more than she should so I told her to stick to the details in the statement and don't offer too much information, just reiterate the statement and answer questions as succinctly as possible.

Also, is it ok if at the end of the meeting when she is asked to sign the details if she says she would like a copy of this to read before signing? Does she have to sign it there and then? I was thinking it might not do any harm for her to say she wants to read the notes before signing and if she is happy to sign she will do so and return it after her holidays.

The manager in question is quite inexperienced and a bit of a game player if what she tells me is true. It looks to me like she is being ambushed and scare tactics are being used. I am hoping that by going in prepared and detached she will be able to highlight to the manager how unprofessional they are and show that she is not a mug and she knows the procedures even if the management don't.

Your advice would be grately appreciated.

thanks
Ted

tatli_lokma

update on this - we have discovered that no legal minimum notice exists, but it is considered bad form for a manager to spring this on you and were it to lead to dismissal and you wanted to take a case it could reflect badly on the employer.

As it turned out, when my mate said she did want someone there, the manager had a bit of a huff about it and said no, cos she had already signed to say no one was attending with her.

Long story short, a more senior manager was also present and he insisted that she have someone attend as a witness (and questioned why she didn't have a witness, which was a bit awkward for the supervisor to explain).

She went in with a prepared statement, handed it over to the senior manager who read it, and thanked her for it, said it was a very good and factual report, and said it gave him a clearer understanding of what the situation was. He then commented that although she had been reported for gross misconduct in his opinion the matter in hand was not as serious as first thought and he believed a first written warning was sufficient. In fact he commented that possibly the whole thing could have been handled in a less formal way.

Reading between the lines, it seems the manager thinks that her supervisor had over-reacted and run straight to disciplinary hearing when a warning would have been enough.

Unfortunately, because the train was set in motion, proper procedure had to be followed, which meant a sleepless night for my mate, and the warning is now on her record for 6 mths, and the matter is classed as gross misconduct. But the flip side is that the manager is now more aware that the supervisor is a bit of a twit! The supervisor is also being sent for training as a result, and my mate will be having her performance appraisal with the senior manager at the end of the month and not with the supervisor, so at least some good came from it.

Wishbone Ash

Glad to hear it worked out ok for you (although gross misconduct is generally a sackable offence).

I usually give 10 to 14 days notice and either hand deliver a letter of notification in person or send it by registered post.

I prefer employees to have a representative present as I think it protects me also. The representative does not have to be another employee - someone brought a solicitor recently.

(Some employees can be excessively stupid. I recently delivered a letter of notification to one gentleman who then advised me to "shove it up your hole". He changed his tune pretty rapidly when he got another bringing it to the final stage. His union were seriously unimpressed with his comment also).

tatli_lokma

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Glad to hear it worked out ok for you (although gross misconduct is generally a sackable offence).

yeah she is pretty relieved, and actually the fact it was GM worked in her favour in a way, because it highlighted the inadequacies of the supervisor by running to GM at the first opportunity. The difficulty is that there is a line in the handbook where it outlines what is classed as GM and it say something along the lines of 'anything which reflects badly upon or diminishes the company and its repuation'. Now to me, what she did was fairly benign - a mistake yes, but not so serious as to diminish the company repuation. And she argued this, but the supervisor insisted that what she did was exactly this. The senior manager seems to have been in agreement with my mate, but because the accusation of GM had already been put in, there was only a limited number of options available to him. The least being to downgrade to a written warning, which is what he did. In all reality, there was little chance of her being sacked for what she did - repremanded yes, but not sacked. That didn't stop her feeling sick with worry though.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I usually give 10 to 14 days notice and either hand deliver a letter of notification in person or send it by registered post.

yeah our company has a minimum of 2 working days notice, but we would be encouraged to give at least 5. The only time you would call a meeting at such short notice was for something very serious such as theft, violence etc.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I prefer employees to have a representative present as I think it protects me also. The representative does not have to be another employee - someone brought a solicitor recently.

agreed, it is a protection for you too, as you say. The senior manager grasped this, but the supervisor seemed to miss that point.

However, just on this, legally, as far as I am aware, the employee is allowed to bring a person connected in some way with the business, a union rep or a solicitor - the company can refuse any other persons to attend, such as family etc. There is nothing to stop you allowing it, but you don't have to. And even bringing in the union rep or solicitor, they are not there to act for you, they are simply a witness and are not entitled to have any input to the proceedings. If for example a solicitor started to argue a case for the employee, they could be asked to be quiet. There role is as observer, not as an active participant. I would imagine anyone bringing a solicitor does so believing that they will require further legal assistance down the road.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

(Some employees can be excessively stupid.

100% agreed. And this includes management. My mates supervisor has just shown himself to be someone who does not adhere to a sensible approach to discipline and who arbitrarily bypasses steps when he feels he can. He seemed to think that it would be a formality that my mate would be sacked. He was literally trying to manage her out, and that is why he jumped on this opportunity. All it did was highlight his inadequacies to higher management, so while she has to endure a warning on her record, at least it had a negative impact on the petty little twerp as well.

n3llo

Hi, I was told last night (friday 18-05-12) that I will be getting an written warning on monday 21-05-12 for time and attendance.....is this enough notice? Not even one working day!
I got the warning for 4 seperate medical certified sick episodes (1day, 2days, 4 days and 5days) since last september!! Is this legal?

regards.

nanook

I would appeal on grounds of incorrect procedures and also signing a witness waiver under pressure.

Seems the supervisor needs a wake up call also.

We have all messed up in work, and if we deserve a slap on the wrists so be it but process is process. A manager has indicated that a disciplinary hearing may not have been required so no way does someone deserve a GM charge on their file as a result.

thrilledskinny

n3llo wrote: »

Hi, I was told last night (friday 18-05-12) that I will be getting an written warning on monday 21-05-12 for time and attendance.....is this enough notice? Not even one working day!
I got the warning for 4 seperate medical certified sick episodes (1day, 2days, 4 days and 5days) since last september!! Is this legal?

regards.

why would u get warning over certified leave?? Did u not adhere to the rules ?

tatli_lokma

nanook wrote: »

I would appeal on grounds of incorrect procedures and also signing a witness waiver under pressure.

Seems the supervisor needs a wake up call also.

We have all messed up in work, and if we deserve a slap on the wrists so be it but process is process. A manager has indicated that a disciplinary hearing may not have been required so no way does someone deserve a GM charge on their file as a result.

Totally agree. However, as far as classifying the episode as GM goes, because the wording in the handbook is such a vague discription and is open to interpretation, what the supervisor feels "reflects badly upon or diminishes the company and its repuation", is different from what I would believe falls into this category.

She did state this in her statement she wrote, that she felt this level of punishment was unfair. She went on holiday that day for 2 weeks - just got back last Friday. Was working Fri and Sat, and nothing has been said about it. She was told that upon her return she would be told of the final decision, which most likely would be a final written warning, but so far nothing. We'll just have to wait and see.

tatli_lokma

n3llo wrote:

Hi, I was told last night (friday 18-05-12) that I will be getting an written warning on monday 21-05-12 for time and attendance.....is this enough notice? Not even one working day!
I got the warning for 4 seperate medical certified sick episodes (1day, 2days, 4 days and 5days) since last september!! Is this legal?

I don't think you need notice of a warning. Its a warning, so there would be no need to 'warn you about your warning' if you get my meaning. Unless it says in your handbook that you will be given prior notice of a warning being issued.

My question was because it was a formal disciplinary meeting, and less than 24 hours notice seemed a bit unfair.

Are you being called into a meeting and the possibility is that you will receive a warning? in which case, short notice is unfair, but perfectly legal.

And it is legal for them to warn you about your attendence if they feel you are not adhering to the policy. Having a sick cert does not exempt you from the attendence rules - what I mean is, just because you produce a sick cert does not mean you can be off sick as much as you like and nothing can be done. If they feel your periods of absence are having a negative impact on the workplace then they can issue you a warning - and furthermore, if they feel you are no longer fit to do the job they can dismis you, regardless of how many sick certs you have.

did they eververbally warn you about your periods of illness? have they informally chatted to you about why you have been off? and have they conducted back to work interviews when you returned from sick leave?

thrilledskinny wrote: »

why would u get warning over certified leave?? Did u not adhere to the rules ?

Different companies have different policies. Some state that only 3 episodes of illness are permitted in any 12 month period. Anything after that gets a warning.
Also, we don't know the circumstances of the illness or warnings. For example, if the illnesses always fell on a Monday, or a holiday request was refused and coincidently a period of sick leave was taken....etc etc.

As we all know, some doctors give out medical certs like confetti.

the poster says that the sick days have been increasing in duration from one to 5 days. They now have a total of 12 working days missed in 7 months. For many employers this would be unacceptable (especially if they pay you whilst off sick) unless there was a very very good reason. And if there were such a reason the poster should sit down with management and explain this to them.

Having said that, if the company feels that the sickness days have increased and they have noticed a decline in the quality of the employee's work or attitude, then they should be talking to the employee long before a warning is issued, just to be sure there are no underlying issues in the work place which are contributing to the periods of illness. That is what a responsible employer would do well in advance of issuing warnings.