Expert intervention to close the door on the threat of an unfair disciplinary outcome.

Groundless and career-threatening customer complaints can be a nightmare for an employee as Jackson discovered.

The joiner was alleged to have been rude, unprofessional and to have caried out poor work when fitting internal doors at the home of a female householder. He categorically denied the allegations.

The customer demanded a discount and threatened to write a negative online review and post videos on social media if she did not receive it.

Jackson, who had worked for his employer for four years, insisted the complaint was malicious when he was summoned to his manager’s office and first informed of it.

However, his boss said it was the second customer complaint against him, the first one he admitted, and told Jackson he would be suspended from work. Shocked Jackson protested his innocence.

His boss attempted to assure him, which his words certainly did not do, that it would all get sorted out during the disciplinary investigation.

At a subsequent fact-finding meeting, Jackson was adamant he was polite, professional and did a good job.

It was revealed during the meeting that the employer had not actually been out to inspect Jackson’s work, but was claiming to have suffered a financial loss as a result of his actions, and in having to give the customer a discount for the work.

Jackson later received an invite to attend a disciplinary hearing to face allegations of an unprofessional attitude and poor workmanship, which caused the business financial loss.

He contacted our Employee Support Centre. Jackson, despite not being a member of a trade union, was put in touch with one of our experienced trade union representatives who would support him through the disciplinary process and accompany him at the disciplinary hearing.

The evidence to support the allegation consisted of a complaint email from the customer and a picture of one door handle with four loose screws.

Our trade union representative’s initial concern was the lack of evidence and investigation in a case, in which the allegations were said to potentially amount to gross misconduct.

Also included in the evidence was reference to an old written warning Jackson was given two years earlier. On that occasion he admitted swearing in a telephone conversation during a cigarette break outside of a customer’s home.

Our representative in his role as Jackson’s companion presented the response to the allegations and was firm in his assertion the action being taken was wholly unfair and the allegation should be dismissed.

He maintained the investigation was flawed and not thorough and fair as it did not adhere to the ACAS Code guidance for conducting a reasonable investigation when allegations are considered serious.

Our trade union representative argued that it was unfair and illogical to simply accept the customer’s word for what was alleged. No questions were asked of her in response to the complaint email and it was said it was impractical to accept the image of the door handle as evidence of poor workmanship when anyone could easily loosen the screws.

The image of the door handle was emailed to Jackson as a jpeg and our trade union representative knew how to check the metadata of the image to establish when it was taken – it was three days after Jackson did the job, and on the same date as the complaint email.

He said to offer a discount based on just that, and no checks, showed an unfair presumption of Jackson’s guilt.

Our representative told the hearing that reasonable disciplinary action must be based on substantiated facts rather  than unproven complaints and extremely limited and dubious photo evidence.

In referring to employment case law our trade union representative highlighted two crucial points in support of Jackson’s case.

It was asserted that in terms of Jackson’s attitude it was  a case of his word against that of the customer and how he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and that the inclusion of the expired warning was unfair and could not be justified.

Jackson was asked a number of questions in relation to the allegations before the hearing concluded.

He received a letter from his employer two days after the hearing informing him that the allegations had been dismissed.

If you have unfairly been accused of any type of misconduct at work, you can get assistance from of one of our experienced, dedicated and skilled trade union reps to help you to fight any allegation. Contact our Employee Support Centre or call us today for a free initial consultation on 0333 772 0611.