Avoiding paying a high price after talking freely at work

Employees often feel safe speaking openly when among like-minded colleagues but it can prove to be problematic if someone does actually take offence to what is said.

During a group discussion in a breakout space at work Drew, an assistant interior designer, was outspoken and heavily critical of a government policy announced by a female minister from an ethnic minority background.

Drew admitted his comments included some expletives, which were not out of place in the culture of the working environment, but insisted he did not say anything offensive. But his bosses did not initially accept it was the case.

Shocked Drew was suspended from work after his comments were reported to management at the company where he had worked for six years.

Drew, who was never informed who raised the concern about what he said, was cleared of any wrongdoing following a disciplinary investigation.

It was later alleged he challenged a female workmate who had been part of the discussion and called her ‘a grass’ and ‘a snake.’

Drew was suspended again, this time for bullying and intimidation. Stunned Drew admitted speaking to his colleague about the complaint, but protested his innocence.

He was invited to a formal disciplinary hearing. The allegation was bullying behaviour towards female colleagues.

Drew was shocked by the allegation, and more so by the evidence being relied upon to support it.

That evidence amounted to a single witness statement provided by the employee who made the allegation against Drew.

The statement included a number of claims about how in her view he had a problem with women and spoke to and treated female colleagues worse than male ones.  

No names or details of specific incidents and examples were provided apart from the comment about the female politician.

Drew contacted our Employee Support Centre for help with his case.

Our representative was concerned by the seriousness of the allegation, and lack of evidence to support it.

He contacted the employer prior to the disciplinary hearing to request more details about the other female employees Drew was alleged to have bullied.

The employer refused to provide the information prior to the hearing. It insisted all of the evidence would be provided at the meeting.

Our representative said doing so would not allow Drew reasonable time to prepare a response to what was an extremely serious allegation. He did point out it was a breach of the ACAS Code. The employer stood by what it said.

Drew was advised by our representative to raise a grievance on grounds he was being treated unfairly and the disciplinary process was unfair.

The grievance letter requested the disciplinary hearing be suspended until the grievance was resolved.

It was pointed out the grievance allegations, if upheld, would have ramifications and significant bearing on the disciplinary process.

The disciplinary process was eventually suspended to allow the grievance to be heard and addressed first.

Our representative used the grievance hearing to strongly assert the disciplinary case should be reviewed and stopped because it was grossly unfair.

This included reference to the fact it was Drew’s word against that of his colleague re her complaint of his behaviour towards her, and there was no corroboration for either version of events.

Employment law guidance was referred to in order to point out that in such situations the alleged wrongdoer should be given the benefit of any doubt.

Our representative told the hearing the claims about Drew mistreating other female members of staff was not true. He said sufficient details were not provided to support the allegation, which was unfair and a breach of the ACAS Code.

Drew’s desired grievance outcome was for the disciplinary process to be stopped because it was unjust.

Two weeks after the grievance hearing, Drew was informed the disciplinary process would not go ahead and he could return to work.