A call for help that was answered with the desired effect

Jasmine knew her job was on the line when she faced a new allegation at work because she was on a final written warning  - and it was still active.

The call centre worker was suspended from work following a ‘customer complaint’. She was oblivious as to what the complaint was about.

Worried Jasmine asked for more information, and was assured by her team leader it would be provided at the appropriate time.

Jasmine, who had worked in the call centre for just under three years’, was later invited to a fact-finding meeting as part of the disciplinary investigation.

The letter inviting her to the meeting simply explained the reason for it was to discuss a customer complaint on a date that was provided.

It was her dad who did some research and then told her to contact our Employee Support Centre.

Jasmine was put in touch with our representative and explained the situation to him. He asked about the 12-month final written warning, which was still active.

She explained it was issued for performance concerns following a process and disciplinary hearing that she believed were unfair.

Jasmine said she had sciatica and detailed how the pain and discomfort had become much worse at the time and exacerbated the symptoms of her long-term depression, which she felt had a knock-on effect on her performance and call handling.

She said she did highlight this at the time, but it was treated dismissively. This was despite the fact she did raise a grievance.

The grievance included that work-related treatment amounted to disability discrimination. Long-term depression can be considered a disability in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

Jasmine wanted our representative to accompany her at the investigation meeting given the incredibly harmful impact the last disciplinary process had on her.

He checked the employer’s disciplinary policy, which did not allow an employee to have a companion at a fact-finding meeting.

However, our representative wrote to the employer to request that he be allowed to accompany Jasmine at the meeting, and that it be considered as a reasonable adjustment to the usual process.

He detailed the harmful impact the previous disciplinary process had on Jasmine and reminded the employer of its duty of care to all employees, especially those such as Jasmine who could be considered vulnerable.

The employer agreed to implement the reasonable adjustment requested.

Ahead of the meeting our representative asked for a copy of a recording of the call or a transcript of it and of the customer complaint, which the employer refused to provide.

But some details were provided in terms of the nature of the call and fact the caller alleged that Jasmine had been ‘rude and abrupt’.

Our representative requested a copy of the employer’s customer complaints policy. The policy was provided and it made clear complaints must be submitted in writing.

At the fact-finding meeting our representative sought clarification if a complaint had been submitted in writing. 

The investigation manager was evasive in her answer.  But pushed by our representative, she later clarified the complaint was in the recording of the call during which the customer said he was going to make a complaint because Jasmine had been rude and interrupted him. But he did not submit one in writing.

Our representative argued the action being taken against Jasmine was unfair for a range of reasons, including the employer’s failure to follow its own complaints policy and refusal to let Jasmine hear the recording of the call or read a transcript.

He also pointed out how callers can become irate, threaten to complain, calm down and later realise they were in the wrong and not follow it through for that reason. He also detailed and talked about Jasmine’s ability to deal with difficult calls, which she had demonstrated previously.

The investigation meeting was adjourned, and Jasmine received a call from her team leader later the same day to inform her she had no case to answer.