1

Planning and conducting investigations

@

2

3

Introductions and welcome Hello! Welcome to Planning and conducting investigations

By attending the training, you will be able to:

• Recall the importance of having a robust and effective legal framework. • State what your role as an investigator is. • Demonstrate an understanding of the features of a good quality

investigation and how it helps to achieve a fair and effective disciplinary, grievance or restoring performance process.

• Plan an investigation using the 3-step approach. • Use effective questions to give a clear outline of events and make

recommendations as to next steps. • Complete an investigation report that is fit for purpose.

4

The legal framework for managing misconduct The legal framework for managing people comprises of three complimentary elements that may well be familiar to you. An easy way to imagine these three elements working together is to think of a suit:

• The waistcoat – the contract of employment. • The trousers – statutory employment law. • The jacket – our policies and procedures.

If we consider employment law in the context of any workplace issue, all three elements of the ‘suit’ jump into action. Looking at them specifically in the context of managing misconduct, which element(s) of the ‘suit’……

1 Defines what is ‘misconduct’?

2 Determines what steps we need to take when it seems misconduct has occurred?

3 Defines what is gross misconduct?

4 Identifies what the sanction for gross misconduct could be?

5 And finally…. Creates the rules determining whether to, and how to, suspend an employee?

5

An overview of the disciplinary process Here is a step by step guide to managing a disciplinary situation. In the course of the day we will look at why these steps are in place – and the mindset we need to have as each step is in progress. First though, consider who does what?

6

What does an investigation need to achieve? Our disciplinary procedure is based on fair and effective management, but it’s not just the Company that want to see fair treatment. Employment tribunals must take the ACAS Code into account when considering whether an employer has acted reasonably. In that sense it is somewhere between statutory employment law (the trousers) and Airbus’ policies and procedures (the jacket)….

If an employee wins their claim for unfair dismissal the employment tribunal has the power to increase or decrease, by up to 25%, the compensation awarded if either the employer or the employee have unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS

Code.

The ACAS Code sets out both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of managing people through the formal procedure. The investigation plays a critical role in providing information to both the employee and the disciplinary chairperson – and therefore demonstrating compliance with the ACAS Code.

NEW SIZE!

Up to 25%

larger!

25%

off!

7

The ACAS Code checklist

THE WHATS THE HOWS

Let

ter

□ If there is a case to answer, notify the employee in writing

□ Provide copies of any written evidence with this notification

□ Give the details of the time and the venue for the meeting in this notification

□ Notify the employee of the right to be accompanied

Be

pro

mpt □ Take steps without unreasonable

delay

Mee

ting □ Hold a meeting with the employee

to discuss the problem □ Allow the employee to be

accompanied at the meeting Be

clea

r □ Give copies of written evidence and explain the complaint

□ At the hearing: o Explain the complaint o Go through the evidence

□ The outcome should explain: o the improvement required o The lifetime of the warning o The consequences of further

complaints

Dec

isio

n

□ After the meeting decide whether or not disciplinary or other action is justified

□ Inform the employee of the outcome in writing

□ Confirm the opportunity to appeal

Be

open

-min

ded

□ In misconduct cases, usually a different investigator to a disciplinary chair

□ Allow the employee a reasonable time to prepare their case

□ At the hearing: o Allow the employee to ask

questions o Give them a chance to respond

to the allegations; and o Ask about witness evidence

□ Appeals to be heard impartially and wherever possible by someone not previously involved

Appea

l □ Employees are to raise their appeal in writing including their grounds

□ Hold a meeting with the employee to discuss the appeal

□ Allow the employee to be accompanied at the meeting

□ Inform the employee of the outcome of the appeal in writing

Be

consi

sten

t □ Act consistently

8

Being ‘prompt’ Being prompt means treating the situation as a priority, rather than rushing through a situation: Rushing could put you at risk of one of the other aspects of the Code designed to ensure that the employee has sufficient time and information to know the case they are facing and being prepared for the hearing.

Two key points to remember about ‘being prompt’:

(1) Ensure that you comply with the timeframes for actions in your policy. (2) Keep the time someone is suspended to a minimum.

Being consistent Consistency is one of the common areas of challenge in any large organisation. However, consistent does not mean ‘the same’: Disciplinary decisions need to be made on the basis of what is within ‘the range of reasonable responses’: This means the decision needs to be made on all the facts of the particular case. Therefore, just because the case involves the same allegation, the surrounding circumstances may mean that a reasonable outcome for each case differs. That’s not inconsistent – it’s fair as long as it is a reasonable decision based on all the circumstances of the case.

9

The ’whats’ and the ‘hows’ in action:

Mohammed, a manager, has spotted Aled ‘shadow boxing’ another employee whilst they were both in the morning briefing session. Mohammed’s investigation shows that the boxing was in jest, but Aled accidentally gave his employee a bloody nose. Mohammed tells Aled that he’ll be in a disciplinary hearing ‘quicker than he can blink’ and that ‘he’d better start looking for another job’.

Aled receives a letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing in 2 days’ time, accusing him of ‘horseplay’. The letter says he could be dismissed. He is given the right to be accompanied to the hearing.

Mohammed chairs the disciplinary hearing. He decides to dismiss Aled. He gives him the right of appeal.

Have the ‘whats’ and the ‘hows’ been achieved in the process followed up to now?

10

What else does an investigation need to achieve? We have established that an investigation plays a key role in achieving a fair procedure by making sure that the case is looked in to in an ‘open minded’ way: Also by ensuring that the employee has information on which to prepare for the disciplinary procedure. The investigation also helps to ensure that we comply with the remainder of the legal framework. Here’s something that is likely to be familiar: The ‘trousers’ aspect of the legal framework sets down what is required for a fair dismissal (or warning)*.

* That’s not to say that all investigations lead to disciplinary hearings. Nor is it to say that all disciplinary hearings lead to dismissals either; but the law requires us to follow best practice for all cases whatever the potential outcome.

Make sure it’s misconduct we’re dealing with.

The ‘whats’:

Letter → Meeting → Decision → Appeal

(follow the disciplinary procedure)

and

The ‘hows’:

□ Be prompt □ Be clear □ Be open-

minded □ Be

consistent

includes

Giving the employee the right to be accompanied.

When deciding whether someone committed misconduct: Have a genuine belief that is based on reasonable grounds.

When deciding the appropriate sanction: make a decision that is reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Fair reason Fair processReasonable

decision

Fair outcome

(warning or dismissal)

11

A genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds…. As investigator, what level of evidence do I have to provide? The disciplinary chairperson has to have a genuine belief that the employee committed the misconduct. That belief must be based on reasonable grounds. Genuine belief?

• The chairperson will have it – or they won’t. Reasonable grounds?

• Evidence based • Logical • Reached in an open-minded way.

Tim and the drill Read the below case and decide if Tim’s dismissal was fair – or unfair. Tim is a building maintenance contractor working for a company that make repairs on a block of flats. As the tools used to complete the works are owned by the company, each employee needs to sign each tool out, returning these before the end of the day. At the end of one day, the stock take was completed and a tool which Tim had signed out was missing. The manager, Stan, asked Tim if he knew where it was, to which Tim replied, “I did use it, but I don’t know where it is now.” A thorough search of the flats was completed, but the drill did not emerge. In the course of the search, John, another property maintenance contractor and a long-standing employee of Tim’s, spoke to Stan. He explained “I think I saw Tim earlier today with that tool and I’m sure I saw him putting it into his bag. Also, he did mention last week that he was going to be doing some work on his house this weekend!” John had nothing to gain by providing this information to his manager and felt it was his responsibility to be honest about what he had observed. Stan completed a formal investigation and in doing so, interviewed Tim. He told Tim what John had said. Tim denied stealing the drill and said ‘he did not know’ why John would have said what he did. It was decided that Tim should be invited to a disciplinary hearing to consider an allegation that he had stolen the drill.

Genuine beliefBased on

reasonable grounds

12

The hearing was chaired by Martin. Martin decided, based on the evidence, to dismiss Tim for gross misconduct for stealing the drill. Assume that Martin followed a fair process. Do you think his decision was a fair/unfair? Tim appealed against the decision to dismiss him. A senior manager, Jacinta, heard the appeal. She was satisfied that Martin had reached a fair decision and upheld the decision to dismiss Tim. Tim therefore brought a claim to an Employment Tribunal. A day before the ET hearing, there was a leak at the block of flats, resulting in flood damage and some floorboards needing replacing. On lifting the floorboards, the missing tool was found! Do you think the Employment Judge said the dismissal was fair or unfair? Assume the Judge considered both a fair process and a reasonable investigation had been carried out

13

The role of the investigation: In summary In summary then, the legal framework helps us to understand what exactly we need to look for when we are investigating an allegation – and how to break it down. The framework requires a ‘reasonable’ investigation:

□ Balanced: – a fact finding, not a prosecution □ Evidence-based; not opinion driven □ Thorough – aligned to the standard of proof and to the point.

As an investigator, what’s your job? Your job is not to decide whether the employee committed misconduct: That’s the disciplinary chairperson’s job. Your job is to gather evidence and reach a conclusion whether there is sufficient evidence on which that chairperson could find that the employee committed misconduct. Therefore, evidence is king.

14

So how do I carry out a reasonable investigation? So, we know what the investigation needs to achieve. Now we need to consider how to do it. Step 1: Be clear about your remit

Make sure you know what exactly you are looking into:

□ Whose behaviour? □ Which incidents?

Step 2: Break down the case into three ‘bite sized’ chunks:

What actually happened?

What are the relevant policies or rules?

What are the relevant surrounding circumstances?

Case Study: Mark Madeup

You have been asked to investigate an allegation that Mark was caught smoking outside the designated area yesterday. He has been warned about this informally on a previous occasion. Euan, who reported the incident, said Mark dropped the cigarette when he approached and that there was smoke ‘all around’ Mark. Euan says he was around the side of the building. Mark said he’d been sat hunched over all day and was just stretching his legs for a few minutes. He denies he was smoking and has said Euan must have been ‘mistaken’.

15

Step 3: Be clear what the end of your investigation will look like

Think about what the report of your investigation needs to contain. In particular, are you being asked to:

□ Gather evidence? □ Reach conclusions? □ Make recommendations?

Take a look at this sample report…..

Strictly private and confidential Investigation report into the conduct of Mark Madeup by [investigator’s name]

Date 1 Introduction I am [name] I am a [job title]. I have been asked by [HR] to conduct this investigation

2 The complaint/allegation I have been asked to conduct an investigation into an allegation that Mark Madeup smoked

a cigarette outside a designated smoking area on 1 April 2017

3 Investigation remit and methodology My investigation looked into the alleged behaviour of Mark Madeup on 1 April 2017

I conducted my investigation by interviewing Mark Madeup and the following witnesses:

• Euan Grass • Sam Senior

I enquired whether CCTV covered the relevant area and I understand that the camera did not cover this area

4 Background (where relevant) The smoking shelter has been located [specify location] for [number] years….

5 Summary of evidence Summarise the evidence of what you have established, incident by incident:

6 Conclusions Set out the conclusions you have reached in the light of the findings of fact:

16

7 Recommendations Set out your recommendations in the light of your conclusions:

8 Appendices List the documents appended to the report

17

Breaking down your investigation: A summary

For this question you are looking for facts, not opinions or assumptions. If the story is being pieced together from different witness accounts – look out for holes or inconsistencies. How are you going to plug them? If you come across a conflict between two witness accounts – one person said the sky was blue, the other said the sky was grey. Ask yourself what distinguishes one person’s evidence from another in terms of the quality of what they are telling you? Don’t forget to include documents or other evidence such as CCTV.

In some cases you are looking into, what ‘the rules’ are and whether they were breached will be obvious: Breaches of an operating procedure are good examples. The rule is clear, and it’s clear that what the employee did was contrary to that rule. But remember other types of rules – such as ones arising from a manager’s right to manage. If a manager has set out a requirement clearly and unequivocally: that’s a ‘rule’ too. You need evidence when the requirement was set – i.e. the great quality note! An investigation may also need to consider an interpretation of a policy, for example our Dignity at Work policy – did the employee’s actions fall within the definition of ‘harassment’ in the policy? What evidence is there to suggest that it would?

The surrounding circumstances relate to the aggravating or mitigating factors, rather than the incident itself. The sorts of things to look out for here are: • Was the employee aware of the rule? • Had the employee been spoken to previously about what they

did – here’s where the manager’s informal management comes into play.

• What was going on for the employee at the time they did what they did? This is often where mitigation comes into play.

• What were the consequences or potential consequences of what the employee did?

The employee’s disciplinary record will also fall into the ‘surrounding circumstances’. Typically, the surrounding circumstances are relevant to the potential outcome (level of warning) if, following a disciplinary hearing, they are found to have committed an act of misconduct.

18

Question detective Your notes

Your questions

What happened?

19

Conducting your investigation interviews Question types When you are planning your investigation, you may wish to consider what types of question will help you to obtain the information you need. Here is a reminder of the various types of question and their advantages/disadvantages in an investigation:

Open questions: these are framed to encourage an expansive response and work well when probing a particular point.

how…., who…, what…, when…, where…, why…..

also: describe…, explain…, tell me about….

Advantages Disadvantages

• encourages the employee to do most of the talking

• may turn up unexpected areas to pursue

• allows the employee to talk about topics in their own words

• good for exploring opinions, attitudes and feelings

• can be difficult to phrase succinctly

Closed questions: these are framed so the person responding gives yes/no answers

do…, did…, can…, is…, are…, have…, will…,

Advantages Disadvantages

• can be used to good effect to obtain or check specific, concise information

• useful when you want to gain quick confirmation of basic facts

• can be used to regain control from a talkative person

• are useful for clarifying a vague response

• can be used to direct the interview to specific areas or to introduce a more open question

• too many closed questions can seem like an interrogation

• can limit shy or nervous interviewees by not encouraging them to expand

• not appropriate if you are trying to get the employee to talk in depth about their experience or attitudes

20

Hypothetical questions: these are questions that set up a possible situation or problem and ask the interviewee for a possible course of action.

“How would you have handled the situation?”

Advantages Disadvantages

None in an investigation – you want facts. • don’t reveal much of the employee’s actual experience - what they did, saw or heard

• tend to elicit hypothetical answers – what is the value of this to the investigation?

• can be little correlation between what people say they would do and what they actually do in a given situation

Leading questions: this type of question suggests the expected answer.

“Of course you didn’t do that, did you?”

Advantages Disadvantages

To confirm something already clearly stated in evidence – you have already said that you weren’t there, haven’t you?

• tend to reveal more about the investigator’s view than the employee because their effect is to encourage or possibly compel them to say what the investigator wants to hear

• they are based on assumptions on the part of the interviewer

Can give the impression that the investigation is not an even-handed ‘fact finding’ exercise.

Echo questions: These are great to check understanding or deal with emotional/broad statements.

“ ‘Nightmare’ – help me with that” or “Furious?”

Advantages Disadvantages

Can take the ‘heat’ out of a situation

Will clarify a statement without putting words into the other person’s mouth

Not sure there are any – if you use them to clarify.

21

Fancy a (question) sandwich? That’s a closed question. It’s also a useful technique to plan your questions and section up your interview. The recipe for the sandwich is as follows:

Bread: Closed questions

To set the topic for this section of the interview.

Filling: Open questions

The ‘meat’ of the topic.

Bread: Closed questions

To finish off that topic – this is often quite standard, such as ‘is there anything else I need to know?’

Notes of Investigation Meeting with Mark Made-Up Plan a question sandwich for your interview with Mark, based on the answers he gives you below: [NB: notes of the opening part of the interview not included]

1. Q (Closed):

o I do smoke, but I was not smoking when I saw Euan that day.

2. Q (Open):

o Euan must have made a mistake. I am trying to stop at the moment.

I’ve a kid on the way and so that’s the incentive.

22

3. Q (Open):

o I was on my lunch break. I can’t remember exactly where I was. I had

only gone out for a few minutes to get some fresh air.

4. Q (Open):

o I could have been at the side of the building at one point, I probably

wandered around a bit

5. Q (Open)

o The designated smoking shelter is at the back of the building. I didn’t

go there because I only needed a quick break and didn’t have a

cigarette. I didn’t want to be tempted.

6. Q (Open):

o I don’t know why Euan would say I was smoking.

7. Q (Open):

o I don’t have any particular relationship with him. Euan is at the same

level as me. He joined the business a year before me.

8. Q (Open):

o I don’t remember any smoke around me at the time. Euan must have

made a mistake about that.

9. Q (Open):

o It was freezing! I remember specifically thinking I could see my breath

– in April! That’s why I didn’t hang around out there for very long.

10. Q (Open):

o I remember Euan approaching me on that day. I remember he said

‘you know you’re not meant to be smoking there, right?’. I thought he

was being sarcastic, so I didn’t bother to answer. I just rolled my eyes

and followed him back in about five minutes later to have my

sandwich.

23

11. Q (Open):

o I thought Euan was being sarcastic about the fact that I was previously

caught smoking where I shouldn’t by Julian, the Director. He was

really nice about it – he was going out for a cigarette himself and

caught me lighting up: He said ‘he was sure’ I was on my way to the

shelter and he would go with me. What a legend! I have told a few

people about it – including Euan.

12. Q (Open):

o As I came back into the office after my break I bumped into Sam

Senior. He asked me if I’d been out for a cigarette. I said no, just a

quick break to stretch my legs. It was my lunchbreak, so to be honest

I wondered what it had to do with him what I did.

13. Q (Closed):

o No, not really.

[NB: notes of the closing part of the interview not included]

24

Conducting your investigation interviews Once you have your plan, it is often good to have a structure for your interviews. You can take some of the thinking out of the opening and closing of the meeting: Here are some suggestions of the things you would want to cover. The items in red would be included if you were interviewing the person against whom allegations have been raised.

The opening

Introductions:

Welcome Welcome, [name] – thanks for coming.

You My name is…… I am…….

The interviewee’s companion

Welcome and thanks for coming. [Your name is?]. If necessary, confirm they are a fellow employee/trade union official.

The note taker This is…… They are taking notes for us today.

Why we are here:

Your role I have been asked to conduct an investigation into…

What you are looking into

A complaint about*….

The complaint amounts to an allegation of misconduct [as a potential alleged breach of [name] policy].

What you will be doing

An investigation is a fact finding exercise.

I will be gathering evidence in relation to the complaint.

I will then be reaching a conclusion whether there is sufficient evidence to mean a disciplinary hearing should be arranged.

The next steps after this meeting

It is likely that I will be seeing other witnesses.

There may also be relevant documents that I need to see.

Once I have gathered the evidence I will be producing a report.

That report will be used by the business to decide the next steps, which could be an invitation to a disciplinary hearing.

So you should expect to hear from HR about the next steps.

If I need to speak to you again I will be in touch to arrange a follow up meeting.

25

How the meeting will run: How you will cover the topics for discussion

I will ask you a series of questions about the things I am looking into. I will cover the sequence of events chronologically wherever I can.

The interviewee’s role

I would encourage you to answer the questions as fully as you can. This is an opportunity to give me as much relevant information as you have – so please do so.

The companion’s role

You might want to discuss the complaint with [interviewee] – that is fine. Please could we all make sure that [interviewee] answers the questions I ask?

Housekeeping: Breaks I expect this meeting to last about [number] hours.

We can take a break whenever you want to. Just ask.

Notes At the end of the meeting I will ask you to review and sign the notes [name] will be taking to confirm they are an accurate record. You will have your own copy for your records.

Confidentiality Anything we talk about today will remain confidential within the confines of the investigation.

The information you give me may be shared to other people involved in the investigation – but not outside of it.

Please do not discuss anything we talk about with anyone and do not share the copy of the notes I give you with anyone (other than [name] who is here with you today). If you have any questions about this, please speak to me or to HR.

Ready to go? Check Any questions?

Ready to get started?

* The complaint

If the interviewee has been invited to the investigation meeting by letter, check that they received it and understood what you are looking into.

If they have been invited verbally, give them details of the complaint you are investigating. The level you give will depend on whether they are involved (so the complainant or the person against whom the complaint has been made) or a witness.

26

The closing

Any final points?

From the interviewee

Anything you wish to add?

From the companion

Anything you feel the [employee] should add?

The next steps:

The next steps after this meeting

As I said, it is likely that I will be seeing other witnesses.

There may also be relevant documents that I need to see.

You have suggested [List any the interviewee has suggested]:

If I need to speak to you again I will be in touch to arrange a follow up meeting.

Confidentiality Anything we talk about today will remain confidential within the confines of the investigation.

The information you give me may be shared to other people involved in the investigation – but not outside of it.

Please do not discuss anything we talk about with anyone and do not share the copy of the notes I give you with anyone (other than [name] who is here with you today). If you have any questions about this, please speak to me or to HR.

Notes:

Review [give them time to read them whilst the notetaker is in the room – so they can answer any questions]

An accurate reflection?

Are you happy to sign them to say they are an accurate reflection?*

Thanks for attending:

Thanks Thank you for coming along today [interviewee]

Thank you [companion and note taker] for supporting the meeting

Close This concludes the meeting.

* If the employee will not sign the notes. Sometimes people feel uncomfortable about signing the notes. If this happens ask them whether they are an accurate reflection. If the answer is no, deal with any area they query. If they answer ‘yes’; make a note on the bottom to say that the employee declined to sign the notes but confirmed to you that they are accurate.

27

What if the employee says they are not accurate? If you agree, change it. If you and their recollection of what was said differs, make a note to say there is a difference in recollection – and note both versions.

28

Completing your investigation report It is now time to complete your investigation report by reaching your conclusions and making recommendations. Take a look at the report you have completed up to the end of the summary of evidence. On the basis of that summary, decide your conclusions and recommendation:

Strictly private and confidential Investigation report into the conduct of Mark Madeup by [investigator’s name]

Date 1 Introduction I am [name] I am a [job title]. I have been asked by [HR] to conduct this investigation

2 The complaint/allegation I have been asked to conduct an investigation into an allegation that Mark Madeup

smoked a cigarette outside a designated smoking area on 1 April 2017

3 Investigation remit and methodology My investigation looked into the alleged behaviour of Mark Madeup on 1 April 2017

I conducted my investigation by interviewing Mark Madeup and the following witnesses:

• Euan Grass • Sam Senior

I enquired whether CCTV covered the relevant area and I understand that the camera did not cover this area

4 Background (where relevant) The smoking shelter has been located [specify location] for [number] years….

5 Summary of evidence Euan Grass

I spoke to Euan Grass first. He told me that he had complained about Mark because he was convinced he was smoking ‘where he shouldn’t’. He clarified that as being at the side of the building, outside the windows for the ladies’ toilets.

Euan said he did not actually see a cigarette in Mark’s hand, but that there was smoke ‘all around’ him when he saw him. He was about 30 metres away from him when he first saw him. Euan described the day as ‘freezing’. He saw Mark gesture as if to drop the cigarette when he (Euan) approached him, although he confirmed he did not actually see a cigarette drop from Mark’s hand. Euan demonstrated the gesture he observed to me. He demonstrated a grasped fore-finger and thumb being brought from shoulder level to by Mark’s side.

29

I next spoke to Mark Madeup. He told me that he did smoke, [you would then describe all the evidence from your interview you have just completed – see above]

6 Conclusions There is a conflict in the evidence given by Euan and Mark on the allegation whether

Mark was smoking. There is no other witness (and no CCTV) to resolve the conflict.

Taking into account that:

1) Both Mark and Euan confirmed that the day was ‘freezing’ 2) Euan did not see Mark holding or dropping a cigarette 3) Euan saw a gesture that could reasonably be described as dropping a cigarette 4) There is nothing in the relationship between Mark and Euan that would

question whether Euan’s belief was genuine

I conclude that:

□ There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Mark smoked a cigarette at the side of the building on the 1st April; and therefore outside the designated smoking area

□ There is sufficient evidence to support a finding that Mark smoked a cigarette at the side of the building on the 1st April; and therefore outside the designated smoking area

7 Recommendations

In the light of my conclusions, I recommend that:

□ There is no case for Mark to answer; and so a disciplinary hearing should not be arranged

□ Mark should be invited to a disciplinary hearing to consider an allegation that he committed an act of misconduct

□ Mark should be invited to a disciplinary hearing to consider an allegation that he committed an act of gross misconduct

I recommend that the allegation to be considered at the hearing is:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

8 Appendices

List the documents appended to the report

30

Fit for purpose? Are the following ‘fit for purpose’?

Investigation extract 1

All of those named regarding this scenario could recall the conversation in some detail. The outcome being that it would appear that the conversation was not handled by the manager as well as it could have been and that already a negative atmosphere existed between him and the employee.

The manager did not take up the offer of working together to resolve issues as offered. There was a witness to this incident.

I could not however satisfy myself beyond reasonable doubt that the managers conduct had passed beyond any threshold to say that his response to the employee’s concerns had been inappropriate enough to warrant any recommendation of further disciplinary action against either individual.

Investigation extract 2

Mr Styles statement highlights that fact that neither him nor his colleague, Miss Gent, had been adequately trained on the software they were supposed to use, and yet they were placed in a situation, namely being told to complete a task by their line manager Ms Swift involving the new software. This direct instruction would clearly have exposed their lack of knowledge and experience. This instruction led to both Mr Styles and Miss Gent feeling inadequate and embarrassed.

Mr Styles stated; ‘Ms Swift is very unapproachable, I have told her on several occasions that I was unsure of the software and that I felt I needed more training. She would roll her eyes and on more than one occasion said I must be thick if I couldn’t use it. I stopped asking her for help as it just made me feel useless’. Mr Styles witness statement appendix 1.

Mr Warrington observed one of these interactions and offered assistance to Mr Styles however Ms Swift said she wanted Mr Styles to ‘figure it out for himself as she didn’t want him babysitting’ Mr Warrington witness statement appendix 3.

31

Additional documents What additional documents / information would you include with the Investigation report?

32

These notes are intended to give practical guidance - please do not rely upon them as being detailed enough to amount to legal advice. If you need legal

advice, please contact a member of the Vista team.

These notes describe the law as at 1 February 2018.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

© 2018 Vista Employer Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright and other intellectual property rights in the whole and every part of these materials belong to Vista Employer Services Limited (“Vista”) and may not be used, sold, licensed, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media by any person without Vista’s prior written consent.

These materials do not amount to specific training or advice by Vista and Vista is not responsible for any use or reliance of these materials without the specific direct delivery by Vista of the overall training services.

Warning: The doing of an unauthorised act in relation to these materials may result in both a civil claim for damages and criminal prosecution.