Challenging serious disciplinary allegation when the evidence is weak

How would you feel if you were accused of serious wrongdoing at work, knew you were innocent, and the evidence didn’t support the allegation?

It can happen, more often than people think, and it’s exactly what happened to school business manager Celine.

She was facing misplaced allegations of drinking alcohol at work, being intoxicated, and taking drugs.

Celine had worked at the school for just under three years and vehemently denied everything, but she knew she needed expert help when she was invited to a disciplinary hearing.

Even though she knew the allegations weren’t true, and the evidence was questionable, she was warned that the outcome could be dismissal.

Fearing the worst, Celine contacted our Employee Support Centre for help.

She was put in touch with one of our trade union representatives, who supported her at the disciplinary hearing.

After reviewing the case and discussing it with Celine, he was shocked by the action being taken against her based on the evidence.

Our trade union representatives are experts in reviewing cases and identifying the key evidence that can help an employee’s position.

In Celine’s case, spotting the issues was fairly straightforward - but experience shows that things are rarely simple in a disciplinary process.

The evidence relied upon against Celine consisted of two anonymous witness statements and what was alleged to be an incriminating photograph featuring her sister.

One statement alleged that, when Celine went outside the school to smoke, she would regularly consume alcohol and return smelling of it. The statement added this was common knowledge among staff.

The second statement referred to a social media image showing Celine's sister with a friend and an unidentified white substance visible on a surface in the background. The statement alleged that Celine had been present at the event, would have been aware of drug-taking, and that it was rumoured she regularly took drugs.

Any thorough and fair disciplinary investigation would have recognised the weak and highly questionable nature of this evidence. Our trade union representative certainly did.

The fact that Celine had been suspended from work on the basis of this evidence and warned that dismissal was a potential outcome was a matter of obvious concern.

In such cases there can often be a reason in the background as to why an employee is being treated so unfairly.

When our trade union representative asked if she could think of any such reason, Celine’s answer was revealing.

She explained she had supported a female colleague who had raised a discrimination complaint based on her religion. Celine  believed the unfair disciplinary action being taken against her could be retaliation for that.

At the disciplinary hearing, our trade union representative presented Celine's response to the allegations and asserted that they were fundamentally flawed and unsupported by credible evidence.

He explained the case relied entirely on two anonymous witness statements and a social media photograph that did not show Celine, drugs or any wrongdoing on her part.

Our trade union representative pointed out that, in accordance with employment law, anonymous witness statements should only be used in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in the case. He emphasised that anonymous evidence should be treated with caution because it cannot be properly tested or challenged.

It was made clear the allegation that drinking alcohol at work was "common knowledge" amounted to vague hearsay, with no independent witnesses, evidence or investigation findings that had been produced to support it.

Our trade union representative described the investigation as "inadequate" because it failed to seek objective evidence or properly assess the reliability of the allegations before reaching conclusions.

The hearing was told that, instead, serious allegations had been pursued on the basis of rumours, assumptions, and guilt by association. The photograph related to Celine's sister, not Celine, and the suggestion that Celine must have known about drug-taking, or regularly took drugs herself, was pure speculation.

Our trade union representative also raised concerns about potential victimisation, given the unfair action being taken against Celine after she had supported a colleague's discrimination complaint.

The disciplinary hearing was adjourned before reconvening a short time later, at which point Celine was informed that all allegations against her had been dismissed.