Cleaning up a real mess of a disciplinary process

Clive was new in his role and feared the worst when he was mistakenly identified as having verbally abused an office worker and facing dismissal after just three months.

He was working as cleaner at an office block, when a male office worker claimed he asked a cleaner to get him some tissue to clear up spilled coffee, there was then an exchange of words in which he was told to get it himself and f*** off before the cleaner walked off.

Clive categorically denied the allegation when he contacted our Employee Support Centre for help to respond to the allegation.

Clive had been suspended from work and was facing allegations of being verbally abusive and of bringing his employer into disrepute.

A complaint was made via email to Clive’s manager a week after the incident. The complainant did not know the name of the cleaner and simply described him as an ‘African guy.’

Clive, who is mixed race and West Indian, was on shift at the time with a colleague who is African.

When spoken to Clive’s workmate denied the allegation. He was suspended along with Clive, but later resigned.

Clive was invited to a disciplinary hearing, and warned that dismissal was a potential outcome.

The evidence to support the allegation was a copy of the complaint email and a witness statement from Clive’s colleague, taken before he left, insisting it was not him.

The employer stated that given Clive’s short length of service it was not necessary to conduct a disciplinary investigation or invite him to a fact-finding meeting.

Clive was concerned because he thought the process was unfair, and it was concern shared by our representative.

As Clive had less than two years’ service, he feared his employer would dismiss him regardless as to whether or not it was fair to do so.

While it can be fairly straightforward to dismiss an employee with short service, it does carry potential risks.

An employee can still make claims for discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and breach of contract as well as a claim for whistleblowing.

Following discussion between Clive and our representative, the decision was taken to raise a grievance.

The grievance submission asked for the disciplinary process to be suspended until the grievance had been resolved. The employer agreed.

The grievance was on grounds that included race discrimination and the disciplinary process being unfair.

The discrimination was on the basis the only description of the cleaner was the ‘African guy’ and Clive was not African, but his employer appeared to believe he was.

Assuming all people of colour are ‘African’ wrongly assumes they all have the same background and reinforces racial stereotypes.

This was explained by our representative at the grievance hearing, at which he pointed out the other employee in question was in fact African and working at the same time the allegation occurred.

He also highlighted the unfairness of the disciplinary process and lack of evidence to support that Clive was actually the person who verbally abused the office worker.

The fact the employer did not speak to the office worker or make any meaningful attempt to establish the identity of the cleaner, and simply acted on what was in the email, was used to demonstrate any investigation was flawed, inadequate and unfair.

Our representative asserted in the strongest possible terms the disciplinary action being taken against Clive was wrong and should be discontinued.

He urged the grievance hearing chair to recommend the disciplinary process be reviewed and stopped for the reasons explained.

The grievance hearing chair opted not to ask Clive any questions before adjourning the hearing to conduct an investigation. She said an outcome would be provided within five working days.

Later the same day Clive received a telephone call to inform him the disciplinary process was not going to go ahead, he had no case to answer and his suspension had been lifted.