Breakfast Forum newsletter – June 2009
MPs’ expense claims were not far from our mind at our June Breakfast Forum, when we selected Mr Ben Tempee as the fictional subject of a case study to discuss the management of a disciplinary investigation.
No doubt many MPs will have been suffering a certain degree of stress lately. Unrelated to this but at the suggestion of forum members, stress management will be the topic at our next Breakfast Forum on Friday 17 July. Specialists in the field will lead the discussion on how to recognise stress in employees and oneself, how to prevent it, manage it, and how to manage sickness absence:
Dr Daniel Simmonds of Psicon, chartered clinical psychologist with the Canterbury-based company that specialises in the promotion of psychological health and wellbeing. Consultant clinical psychologist LJ Conradie will also be on hand to offer his wealth of experience
Gill Monk of Major Occupational Health Solutions, a company that helps business owners manage employee health and sickness
Dr Les Smith, of Health and Wellbeing UK, occupational health physician who specialises in work-related stress
The forum is an opportunity to discuss and share your experiences with other employers in the informal setting of the Rose and Crown in Elham, while enjoying the pub’s excellent cooked or continental breakfasts. The event is free.
If you are interested in attending the next forum on 17 July, please contact anne@employment-relations.co.uk, tel: 01303 840001.
Management of a disciplinary investigation
As an employer, what do you do with Ben Tempee, who for the last 10 years has been claiming the £150 per night allowance for food and accommodation when his sales director’s job keeps him away overnight, yet has been staying at his sister’s every time and not once in a hotel?
If he was an MP, you would want his head, but as his employer, you really would rather not sack him. Forum members discussed the various stages of the disciplinary: investigation, hearing and outcome. The investigation should check whether there any rules as to how the allowance should be spent. Has the company policy been effectively communicated? How do other employees use the allowance and is Ben being unfairly targeted?
The correct action would be to suspend Ben during the investigation, which should be carried out by someone who will not be involved in the disciplinary hearing.
If the hearing reveals that Ben followed company policy to the letter, no further action is required. If, however, there is some evidence that his meetings finished in time for him to get home by 9pm, and that he was tax fiddling by claiming non existent expenses, there is a clear case of gross misconduct.
Sanctions would be dismissal or warning. Employers have to be wary that a badly-conducted disciplinary could lead to a claim of victimisation. They have to be consistent in their treatment of such cases. The last two stages of the process would be a letter advising of the outcome of the hearing, and any potential appeal.
The second case looked at performance v misconduct. Members were invited to consider an Abbey National case of a bank employee who breached FSA requirements by failing to do full ID checks on opening an account. A crucial part of the investigation is to uncover whether the employee’s action was deliberate (misconduct) or not (performance failure).
The investigation reveals that the employee was under severe stress because in the middle of a divorce and struggling to meet bank targets for opening accounts. Whatever the reasons, the breach should be recorded and lead to an official warning. The bank should also check that their training is adequate and up-to-date. If the breach is deliberate, the employee should be dismissed.
When the real case went to court, it ruled that the act was not deliberate and the employee should not have been sacked. The lesson here is that alarm bells should start ringing as soon as your employee draws your attention to stress. This neatly brings us back to the topic which will be discussed at our next forum.
