An apparent compliment that had an undesired effect

If you can imagine facing a fight to save your job and career but having no idea what you are supposed to have done wrong, then you will get a sense of how Richard felt.

The university IT worker was suspended from work for allegedly making an inappropriate comment to a student 18 months earlier.

At the time he was not told what he was alleged to have said, or given the details of who was making the allegation against him.

Two months after being suspended he was invited to attend a fact-finding meeting as part of the disciplinary investigation.

The letter notifying him of the meeting simply listed the allegation as making an inappropriate comment to a student 18 months earlier, which made her feel uncomfortable and harassed.

Richard was shocked and baffled by the allegation. He had no idea what it referred to, and he was adamant he had never said anything improper to any student.

Prior to the meeting he requested more details about the allegation, but was told he would be given the details at the meeting.

Richard had suffered long-term with an anxiety disorder and the refusal to give him more details of the allegation exacerbated his symptoms.

It resulted in his GP signing him off work, which then led to the fact-finding meeting being postponed and delayed.

An employee does not have a statutory right to be accompanied at a fact-finding meeting, also known as an investigation meeting, in the same way they do at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

However, the university disciplinary policy did allow all employees to be accompanied by a companion at a fact-finding meeting.

Richard contacted our Employee Support Centre for help.

When Richard spoke to our representative he did not have much information to give him. He had extremely limited information regarding the allegation and no idea what it referred to.

Our representative immediately asked the employer for more and specific details to allow Richard to prepare for the fact-finding meeting.

He pointed out the allegation dated back 18 months and it was unfair, given the seriousness of the allegation, to expect Richard to recall events with any clarity from that long ago.

Our representative added the situation was, obviously, difficult and stressful  for Richard and how having more details would help him to manage the symptoms of his anxiety disorder, and alleviate a lot of his stress in relation to the process.

The university initially refused to provide additional information.

There was a further exchange of email correspondence in which our representative reiterated the employer’s duty of care, which includes taking all reasonable steps to avoid causing psychological harm. The impact on Richard’s anxiety disorder was emphasised in the communication.

The university did eventually provide more details, and it emerged the allegation against Richard came from a formal complaint the student made against an ex colleague of his.

In that complaint she recalled an incident in which she mentioned to Richard how

If you can imagine facing a fight to save your job and career but having no idea what you are supposed to have done wrong, then you will get a sense of how Richard felt.

The university IT worker was suspended from work for allegedly making an inappropriate comment to a student 18 months earlier.

At the time he was not told what he was alleged to have said, or given the details of who was making the allegation against him.

Two months after being suspended he was invited to attend a fact-finding meeting as part of the disciplinary investigation.

The letter notifying him of the meeting simply listed the allegation as making an inappropriate comment to a student 18 months earlier, which made her feel uncomfortable and harassed.

Richard was shocked and baffled by the allegation. He had no idea what it referred to, and he was adamant he had never said anything improper to any student.

Prior to the meeting he requested more details about the allegation, but was told he would be given the details at the meeting.

Richard had suffered long-term with an anxiety disorder and the refusal to give him more details of the allegation exacerbated his symptoms.

It resulted in his GP signing him off work, which then led to the fact-finding meeting being postponed and delayed.

An employee does not have a statutory right to be accompanied at a fact-finding meeting, also known as an investigation meeting, in the same way they do at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

However, the university disciplinary policy did allow all employees to be accompanied by a companion at a fact-finding meeting.

Richard contacted our Employee Support Centre for help.

When Richard spoke to our representative he did not have much information to give him. He had extremely limited information regarding the allegation and no idea what it referred to.

Our representative immediately asked the employer for more and specific details to allow Richard to prepare for the fact-finding meeting.

He pointed out the allegation dated back 18 months and it was unfair, given the seriousness of the allegation, to expect Richard to recall events with any clarity from that long ago.

Our representative added the situation was, obviously, difficult and stressful  for Richard and how having more details would help him to manage the symptoms of his anxiety disorder, and alleviate a lot of his stress in relation to the process.

The university initially refused to provide additional information.

There was a further exchange of email correspondence in which our representative reiterated the employer’s duty of care, which includes taking all reasonable steps to avoid causing psychological harm. The impact on Richard’s anxiety disorder was emphasised in the communication.

The university did eventually provide more details, and it emerged the allegation against Richard came from a formal complaint the student made against an ex colleague of his.

In that complaint she recalled an incident in which she mentioned to Richard how she had made a mistake in wearing a summer dress when it was freezing.

She alleged Richard said the dress looked great and that the way he said it, and the look on his face made her feel ‘a bit awkward,’ and not uncomfortable and harassed as alleged.

The student had not complained directly about Richard, and it was the complaint handler who recommended he should be investigated.

Richard was shocked by the allegation and honestly could not remember the comment.

When the investigation meeting eventually took place our representative was strong in his assertion it was unfair.

He highlighted the unreasonable delay in dealing with the matter and impact of this on Richard’s ability to recall the conversation, and that the student never alleged she felt uncomfortable or harassed following any interaction with him.

Our representative also pointed out that taking action against Richard based on how he allegedly looked at the student would be grossly unfair.

He said without witnesses, it becomes a matter of one person’s word against another’s, which is not a solid basis for disciplinary action, and how interpreting someone's look can be highly subjective.

The following day Richard was informed no further action would be taken and his suspension was lifted.

she had made a mistake in wearing a summer dress when it was freezing.

She alleged Richard said the dress looked great and that the way he said it, and the look on his face made her feel ‘a bit awkward,’ and not uncomfortable and harassed as alleged.

The student had not complained directly about Richard, and it was the complaint handler who recommended he should be investigated.

Richard was shocked by the allegation and honestly could not remember the comment.

When the investigation meeting eventually took place our representative was strong in his assertion it was unfair.

He highlighted the unreasonable delay in dealing with the matter and impact of this on Richard’s ability to recall the conversation, and that the student never alleged she felt uncomfortable or harassed following any interaction with him.

Our representative also pointed out that taking action against Richard based on how he allegedly looked at the student would be grossly unfair.

He said without witnesses, it becomes a matter of one person’s word against another’s, which is not a solid basis for disciplinary action, and how interpreting someone's look can be highly subjective.

The following day Richard was informed no further action would be taken and his suspension was lifted.