How we can all learn from a poor disciplinary process

When Zara appeared to criticise a colleague in an attempt to be helpful, the reaction to it left her shocked.

 The further education tutor was accused of undermining a colleague and bringing her employer into disrepute. With the support of our representative Zara was eventually cleared of  the allegations following a disciplinary process.

 Zara’s disciplinary hearing was told she had unfairly criticised a colleague’s marking of work.

 A learner raised a concern with Zara via email. He was unhappy his project work had been graded much lower than it should have been.

 In response Zara said she had heard similar complaints about the same tutor, who it seemed had a reputation for it.

 She advised the learner to use the complaints procedure if he felt his grade was unfair.

 When the learner raised a complaint, he included the email from Zara in support of it. It led to her being suspended from work.

 Zara insisted at the time she had simply advised the student and not done anything wrong.

 However, she was told her conduct, in repeating rumours to the learner, was unacceptable, unprofessional and posed a risk to the reputation of the further education college.

 Zara apologised and maintained she was only trying to be helpful.

 The matter was then subject of a questionable disciplinary investigation, followed by a formal disciplinary hearing.

 The evidence in support of the allegation amounted to a copy of the complaint submitted by the learner, which included Zara’s email.

 The letter notifying Zara to attend a disciplinary hearing said the matter was extremely serious and could amount to gross misconduct if considered proven.

 The allegations levelled against Zara were, undermining a work colleague and bringing the organisation into disrepute

 Worried Zara, who had worked for her employer for just over three years, was alarmed by the thought she could lose her job.

 As the letter inviting Zara to the hearing notified her of the right to be accompanied, she asked if she could bring a family friend who was a solicitor.

 The employer refused the request and said Zara was not allowed to have legal representation at the meeting It led her to contact our Employee Support Centre for help with her case.

 At the disciplinary hearing, our representative argued no evidence had been provided to support the tutor in question felt undermined by Zara’s email.

 The disciplinary hearing chair was told the investigation should have established the facts, but there was nothing to show the email caused any upset.

 Our representative said speaking to the tutor in question was the most fundamental and obvious thing to do, and it was just one of many failings, which he highlighted, in a flawed and unfair investigation.

 He broke down the email exchange between Zara and the learner, pointing out it was the learner who first said he had heard the tutor was known for grading unfairly.

 And he also asserted there was nothing wrong in Zara telling a learner they could use the recognised and established complaints procedure if unhappy.

 Our representative said Zara responded to what was written, at worse made a genuine mistake in what she wrote, understood the concerns raised, her actions were not malicious and they were intended to be helpful, she apologised for any problems caused and had taken appropriate learning from the matter.

 Focus was then placed on the second allegation which stated, as a fact, that the organisation had been brought into disrepute.

 Again, our representative highlighted there was no evidence to support the allegation.

 Making the point forcefully our representative said there appeared to be a worrying pattern throughout the case, which saw serious allegations being made without a shred of evidence to support them.

 A thorough presentation covering a range of issues in support of Zara’s case led to her later being cleared of the allegations.