Questions that produced answers which caused unnecessary trouble

Chrissie is naturally inquisitive and when a colleague openly spoke about growing up in poverty in a foreign country she wanted to know more about it.

To her horror she was later alleged to have subjected her workmate to discrimination because of his race.

It was as a result of what was said to be her ‘offensive, patronising and condescending’ questions and comments.

He colleague took no offence, and would later confirm he was happy and comfortable with the discussion with Chrissie.

Our representative spoke to Chrissie after she contacted our Employee Support Centre in desperate need of help.

Chrissie, a bus driver with three years’ service, explained that during a break her workmate spoke about the extremely poor conditions he grew up in and overcrowded living arrangements.

Other drivers present asked him a range of different questions, and Chrissie accepted she asked more than others.

She was suspended from work after an anonymous complaint was made to management.

Our representative quizzed Chrissie about the questions she asked and comments she could recall making in order to establish if she had been offensive.

She had asked various question including about conditions, sanitation, food and living in an overcrowded one-floor house made of wood.

Chrissie said she did comment that she used to think she was bad growing up on a rundown council estate.

The evidence provided, when Chrissie was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing to face an allegation of acting in a discriminatory manner, consisted of a single anonymous witness statement.

Based on this our representative felt the disciplinary process was unfair, as it was evident the disciplinary investigation, which should establish the facts of a case, had not been thorough and fair.

Other employees present were not spoken to, and more importantly the driver who spoke about his upbringing was not interviewed.

Given the letter inviting Chrissie to the disciplinary hearing warned that dismissal was a potential outcome, our representative discussed with her the idea of raising a grievance because the process being conducted, and way in which she was being treated were grossly unfair.

Chrissie was reluctant to do so. She did not want to delay the process, wanted to resolve the issue as soon as possible and get back to doing a job she loved.

Our representative, based on what Chrissie told him, felt the other employees present at the time could be crucial witnesses and provide valuable evidence to help her case.

He wrote to the employer prior to the disciplinary hearing to request the employee Chrissie asked the questions of, and the four other employees present at the time, attend the hearing as witnesses in accordance with section 12 of the ACAS Code.

The bus company initially refused the request. It eventually agreed after an exchange of email correspondence with our representative.

Only the employee quizzed by Chrissie and one other driver agreed to attend.

At the hearing, the employee who had spoken about his background made it expressly clear he did not take offence to anything said to him, and in fact was more than happy to discuss the matter.

The other witness said he had asked a question during the discussion and that Chrissie did not do or say anything wrong.

The witness evidence was used to argue that Chrissie’s actions could not reasonably be considered to amount to gross misconduct.

Our representative then focused on the anonymous witness statement.

He highlighted that while the half-a-page document alleged Chrissie was racist, offensive, patronising and condescending it provided no specific evidence or reference to what she actually said or did to support such a serious allegation.

The unfairness of the disciplinary process and lack of investigation was highlighted by our representative, and used in his strong assertion Chrissie had been treated unfairly and should be cleared of the allegation.

The disciplinary chair asked Chrissie a number of questions around what she had said and asked, which she fully explained.

The hearing should then have been adjourned to allow the chair to consider her decision, but instead she informed Chrissie there and then that she had already decided there was no case to answer.