Making the wrong kind of mark with a disciplinary process that looked bad

In a small business if an employee upsets the owner in a manner that makes them extremely unhappy, the situation generally tends to end in one way.

Engraving machine operator Alan fell out with the owner of the business where he had worked for six years, after making repeated complaints about long working hours and his excessive workload.

It led to Alan being dismissed in a manner, which he was convinced amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Alan said it occurred after the owner visited him at work, called him into an office and said the relationship is no longer working, and he can either resign or he would be sacked.

Shocked Alan said he refused to resign, and argued he had done nothing that meant he deserved to be sacked.

Alan returned to his work and he could see the owner, through the window in the office, constantly on his mobile phone.

The business owner later called Alan back to the office, said he had spoken to his legal advisors and would like to have an off the record conversation with Alan, which he agreed to.

He said if Alan resigned the business was willing to pay his full notice period and he would not have to work it, pay him for his remaining annual leave, and in addition and as a goodwill gesture pay a tax free lump sum of £1000.

When Alan contacted our Employee Support Centre and spoke to our representative, he explained what happened next.

He refused the offer and was then suspended from work for severely disruptive behaviour and making malicious and false complaints resulting in the business losing trust and confidence in him.

Alan told our representative he was then invited to a disciplinary hearing at 8.30am the following morning. No evidence was provided to support the allegations and the hearing was to be chaired by the owner of the business.

Worried Alan asked for the meeting to be rearranged so he could exercise his statutory right to be accompanied at the hearing, but the request was refused.

Alan did not attend the hearing and was dismissed in his absence, and not informed he had the right to appeal.

Our representative contacted the business to make it clear that Alan should be allowed to submit a disciplinary appeal.

The owner of the business agreed, and said he would hear the appeal.

Our representative pointed out the conflict of interest in him doing so. He used the fact the business was small but doing well to point out it had the resources to appoint an independent HR advisor to hear the appeal to ensure it was impartial and fair.

The business owner initially refused but, after an exchange of correspondence with our representative, he eventually agreed.

At the appeal hearing, there was plenty of evidence for our representative to use to demonstrate the decision to dismiss Alan was unfair e.g. lack of reasonable time to prepare for a disciplinary hearing, denial of right to be accompanied and no evidence provided to support the allegations.

The points were highlighted as breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice and, therefore, possibly the best, and most reliable, evidence to show Alan was treated unfairly.

Alan had told our representative that he did not want to be reinstated and that ideally he would like a settlement agreement. He said it would allow him to draw a line under the matter and move on without having to go to an employment tribunal.

Our representative after completing the presentation of Alan’s appeal, initiated a conversation about a settlement.

The HR advisor said that she was not in a position to comment on it and that all she could do is see if it is something that the employer would be interested in.

The appeal hearing was adjourned. The following day the HR advisor contacted our representative to begin discussions about a settlement on behalf of the employer.

There was a period of negotiation before a settlement was eventually agreed, which Alan was delighted with.