Bad blood that spilled over into a potentially harmful disciplinary process

Worried, Drew was right to be fearful when facing disciplinary action, especially given the clear evidence of a broken relationship with a colleague and the use of CCTV footage against him.

 Admin worker Drew was accused of chasing after and assaulting another employee with whom he had a volatile history.

 After yet another argument between them, the employee walked away, and Drew was captured on CCTV walking quickly after him towards the entrance to a stairwell.

 Once out of sight of the cameras, it was alleged that Drew pinned his male colleague against a wall and swore at him, making threats.

 His colleague reported the incident immediately, and Drew was suspended from work.

 Despite being out of the workplace, the situation escalated when, while with his wife, Drew later saw his colleague in a local supermarket and the pair exchanged words.

 When Drew was subsequently invited to a fact‑finding meeting as part of the disciplinary investigation, he faced allegations relating to incidents both inside and outside the workplace.

 Anxious Drew subsequently contacted our Employee Support Centre and he explained that he had been invited to a disciplinary hearing.

 Drew, who had eight years’ service, faced allegations of physical assault and threatening behaviour. He was warned that, if proven, the allegations would amount to gross misconduct, with dismissal being a potential outcome.

 He was put in touch with one of our trade union representatives, who supported him throughout the disciplinary process.

 The representative reviewed the evidence and discussed the case with Drew.

 The evidence consisted of a statement from the employee detailing the allegations, along with witness statements from a manager and an HR adviser outlining the history between the two individuals and the interventions that had taken place.

 Drew and our trade union representative were also given the opportunity to review the CCTV footage prior to the hearing, which they did.

 Shocked, Drew could not believe the evidence being used against him, which was essentially his colleague’s word about what had happened.

 He was convinced further evidence would be produced at the hearing. Our trade union representative assured him this would be unfair and would be challenged, as it would amount to a breach of the ACAS Code of Practice.

 Drew explained that he had previously found it necessary to raise a grievance against his colleague regarding his behaviour, and his colleague had done the same.

 Attempts at workplace mediation involving the manager and HR adviser, who provided background and witness statements in the disciplinary case, were unsuccessful.

 Our trade union representative asked Drew to obtain a statement from his wife about the supermarket incident.

 He acknowledged that she would not be viewed as an impartial witness by the employer, but her account could still assist, as she was present and witnessed the exchange.

 In presenting Drew’s case at the disciplinary hearing, our trade union representative was strong in his assertion the allegations could not reasonably be upheld due to the lack of direct evidence.

 He explained the CCTV footage showed only Drew walking towards the stairwell after a disagreement, and that what was alleged to have happened out of sight of the camera was completely unproven.

 There were no witnesses, no injuries, and no physical evidence. He emphasised that it was simply one person’s word against another’s, in the context of a long history of tension and tit‑for‑tat grievances between the pair, none of which had ever been upheld. This history, he stressed, made it vital that the evidence be considered carefully and fairly.

 The hearing was told Drew’s wife witnessed the supermarket incident and confirmed he was not the aggressor. While not an independent witness, her account still carried weight because she was present throughout, saw and heard everything, and provided a consistent and detailed statement.

 After presenting Drew’s case, our trade union representative concluded that, in the absence of reliable or corroborated evidence and given the conflicting accounts, the allegations should be dismissed.

 The disciplinary chair questioned Drew about his history with the colleague and both incidents before adjourning.

 When the hearing reconvened just over 30 minutes later, Drew was informed that the allegations had been dismissed.