Do not want to conduct disciplinary meeting

LegacyUser

Hi,

Overview: I am a senior manager in a large multinational company. I am generally called in to conduct grievance meetings because I have a strong people mgt background and am very good at dealing with them, this I have no issue with. However, there is a pending disciplinary meeting with an employee in a different division who has found them-self in a situation where they are facing an allegation of gross misconduct. I was advised three weeks ago that I would be carrying out the disciplinary (therein lies the problem - the decision was made long before the investigation meeting was carried out, I also know the person in question would not be popular among the team) I made it known that I did not want to conduct this meeting because I knew about it and the process was flawed.

2 days ago a Director approached me and asked where my loyalties stood and more or less implied that I must conduct this meeting

Can I remove myself from this situation without going against my better judgment or jeopardizing my job?

I feel sick to the pit of my stomach over this
Thanks

The_Conductor

Where your loyalties stand- and you know in your heart and soul that the process was flawed.
Honestly- while in an ideal world you'd excuse yourself from the grievance- but as you've made your thoughts known, and after this a Director still approached you to hold the meeting- all you can really do is hold the meeting and make findings that morally you are prepared to stand over.

It sounds like they are trying to throw the person in question under a bus- and you know that morally this is wrong.
Are you able to make findings from the meeting- either exonerating the person- or presenting their case in such a manner that they are not unfairly punished?

If a Director has already approached you about the meeting- even after you've made your thoughts known- then yes, its possible that it may be held against you- however, all I can really say is document everything three ways to Kingdom come- and conduct the meeting in a fair and transparent manner- and make findings that morally are just and you can stand over. If, after all that, its held against you somehow- then honestly, I'd suggest you start looking for alternate employment of your own volition- the shenanigans you're describing are not something that I'd like to be part of.

factnee

Tell them that you are of course willing to conduct the disciplinary but add that if the employee takes a claim for unfair dismissal, you would be called to give evidence and would be unable to lie under oath if you are asked about when you initially found out about the hearing. If you say this, I can guarantee you that they will find someone else to do it.

Creol1

factnee wrote: »

Tell them that you are of course willing to conduct the disciplinary but add that if the employee takes a claim for unfair dismissal, you would be called to give evidence and would be unable to lie under oath if you are asked about when you initially found out about the hearing. If you say this, I can guarantee you that they will find someone else to do it.

Unfair dismissals cases are heard by the Workplace Relations Commission, and as far as I am aware, the same standards don't apply to evidence given at a WRC hearing as would be applicable in a court of law. The OP didn't actually say that dismissal would be the outcome of the meeting, although if the allegation is "gross misconduct" that's probably the most likely outcome.

It's difficult to advise without being apprised of the specifics, but I would have thought of multinationals as tending to be somewhat risk-averse when it comes to personnel issues, fearful of legal claims and reputational damage.

For what it's worth, my advice would be to emphasise the risks of disciplinary sanction being imposed without following fair procedures. If the process results in dismissal without having met the company's own standards, a claim for wrongful (not the same as unfair) dismissal could be taken; if the employee has over a year's service, he can take an unfair dismissals claim; if fair procedures weren't followed, the employee can make a complaint under IR legislation, even if the sanction falls short of dismissal; if the employee feels he has been falsely accused of something, he could sue for defamation (this is more difficult if the defamatory claim is made in a disciplinary context, but you needn't say that).

I would emphasise the risks of costly legal action, reputational damage, and so on, as much as possible. Ideally try and get some of your colleagues to come over to your view and give their own views to the Director, which may prompt him to reconsider.

At the meeting, the employee has the right to be accompanied by a colleague or a union official and the employee should be advised of this. If you feel forced to chair the meeting, you could have some contrived disagreement with the employee's representative over some technicality and then claim that the meeting was adjourned to seek clarity, allowing you to defuse the situation for the time being.

Anyway, you sound like a someone with a conscience. Nice to know there are some good people in the HR world!

Airyfairy12

What theyre doing is wrong. Tell them no.

factnee

Creol1 wrote: »

Unfair dismissals cases are heard by the Workplace Relations Commission, and as far as I am aware, the same standards don't apply to evidence given at a WRC hearing as would be applicable in a court of law.


For what it's worth, my advice would be to emphasise the risks of disciplinary sanction being imposed without following fair procedures. If the process results in dismissal without having met the company's own standards, a claim for wrongful (not the same as unfair) dismissal could be taken; if the employee has over a year's service, he can take an unfair dismissals claim; if fair procedures weren't followed, the employee can make a complaint under IR legislation, even if the sanction falls short of dismissal; if the employee feels he has been falsely accused of something, he could sue for defamation (this is more difficult if the defamatory claim is made in a disciplinary context, but you needn't say that).
!

Sorry - I should have clarified. Unfair dismissal claims as well as those taken under the IR legislation, to which you refer, are heard in the first instance by the WRC. While you are quite right in stating that the same standards regarding evidence don't apply at these hearings, appeals from the WRC are heard by the Labour Court where evidence from witnesses must be given under oath.

Senna

You are over thinking the process that came before this, obviously something happened, it could have been tentatively classes as Gross Misconduct by the directors, as the facts of the offense were known. An investigation still needs to be completed to ensure that the process is followed correctly.
It could have been known based on the incident that a disciplinary meeting would be needed, doesn't mean that the investigation needs to be skipped or its outcome will be different than what the director thought straight after the incident.

If I punched my boss and he told me I am going to be fired for this. I couldn't claim unfair dismissal if an investigation and correct procedure is followed, just because my boss told me I'd be fired straight after I hit him but before an investigation.

Skyfarm

Hi OP
you come under the whistleblower act which allows for discourses and safety.
there is also your job to consider, if you don't bend to their wants will the pack mentality look to protect itself?

considering that you are being approached and words like "whose side are you on" show a culture of rot and enablement, it has worked so well that they feel unchallenged, what other cases have they learnt on? what other judgments they have made that has injustice attached to?

this is a question for your morals, values, and how you want to prevent injustice, good luck with it

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/enforcement_and_redress/protection_for_whistleblowers.html

CiboC

My own view is that you should go back to this director and confirm that you feel you are acting in the interests of the company by trying to prevent a subsequent claim to the WRC due to correct and fair procedures not being followed.

Point out the financial and PR damage of a WRC hearing going against the company and why you feel an argument can be made that the process in this case is flawed and could give rise to such a claim.

Your reluctance to be involved stems from the fact that you do not want to be put in a position where you may later be required to give evidence that could confirm a claim of flawed procedures and thereby harm the company.

Have an alternative ready to suggest - a new investigation of the matter that does not prejudge the outcome?

Mr. Incognito

Acting in the best interests of the company doesnt extend to illegal or immoral behaviour

CiboC

Agreed, it doesn't.

But what I am suggesting is the best way (I think) to deal with the issue in a way that is compatible with office politics...

Do what ever is in your best interests would be my approach, if that means conducting the hearing ans finding the "correct" outcome so be it.

Keeping your job, maintaining your progression opportunities and of course ensuring your pay check at the end of the month is what I'd be worried about.

seanrambo87

It sounds like your the best man for the job

Calypso Realm

Emily Quaint Pajamas wrote: »

Do what ever is in your best interests would be my approach, if that means conducting the hearing ans finding the "correct" outcome so be it.

Keeping your job, maintaining your progression opportunities and of course ensuring your pay check at the end of the month is what I'd be worried about.

And this would be your stance if you were the/an employee who is essentially being set up? What a selfish, self-seeking attitude!

Thank heavens for people like the OP, who has a concience and a sense of justice and fairness.

jimmycrackcorm

Senna wrote:

If I punched my boss and he told me I am going to be fired for this. I couldn't claim unfair dismissal if an investigation and correct procedure is followed, just because my boss told me I'd be fired straight after I hit him but before an investigation.

You actually be in line for compensation at the Labour court because the outcome was predetermined and your boss would have made the mistake of falling into that trap.