Rescuing an employee from a potential car crash of a disciplinary case

Facing any type of disciplinary action at work is always troubling – but Mo had more reason to than most to be fearful.

Already on a final written warning, the automotive technician was suspended from work for falsifying vehicle check details.

Mo categorically denied the allegation, but he was understandably fearful that he would lose his job, which he had held for just under 10 years.

He had been issued with a 12‑month final written warning only four months earlier.

Facing the threat of dismissal in that case, he had been relieved to keep his job and vowed to keep his head down, work hard and stay out of trouble.

When Mo contacted our Employee Support Centre for help with the new disciplinary case, he explained what made his situation worse and how much was at stake.

Just months earlier, he had submitted a flexible working request, which had been accepted, to change his hours so he could care for his elderly parents.

He understandably feared dismissal and not finding another job with the same flexibility.

When Mo spoke to our trade union representative, who would be his companion at the disciplinary hearing, he explained that a colleague had carried out work on a vehicle and, before he could record it, he was called away for a family emergency.

He told Mo he had finished the job and asked him to enter the details on the system, which Mo did. It later emerged all of the checks had not been completed.

Mo explained during the disciplinary investigation, that he had simply recorded what his colleague told him and insisted the investigating manager speak to his workmate.

However, she maintained because Mo had entered the information, he was responsible and at fault, and the colleague was not interviewed.

Our trade union representative believed there was significant mitigation in Mo’s case.

Before the disciplinary hearing, a request was made for the colleague who had asked Mo to complete the vehicle check record to attend as a witness in line with section 12 of the ACAS Code.

He was off sick at the time and refused, which was disappointing because our representative believed his evidence could be important.

As the colleague would not assist, Mo was asked whether he had any evidence of their communication.

He provided text messages from the day, which showed the colleague’s family emergency involving his daughter, along with messages apologising to Mo and thanking him for doing him a “massive favour” by completing the vehicle inspection details on his behalf.

Our representative presented that evidence in a comprehensive statement of case detailing Mo’s response to the allegation.

He argued upholding the allegation and dismissing Mo would be unfair and disproportionate based on the evidence.

Our trade union representative argued that there was no intent to mislead, Mo had simply trusted what his colleague told him and acted in good faith to help someone dealing with a family emergency.

The learning Mo had taken from the situation was explained, and it was highlighted that this should reassure the employer that nothing similar would happen in future.

Our trade union representative also emphasised that the failure to interview the colleague showed the disciplinary investigation was flawed and unfair, and that blame was being directed at the wrong person.

It was pointed out that, as part of a fair process, the colleague should have been interviewed because he was central to what happened and his account was necessary to understand whether Mo’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Our trade union representative was firm in stating that even with a final written warning, the employer was still required to consider the evidence carefully and reach an outcome within the range of reasonable responses, and dismissal would not be a reasonable response.

The disciplinary hearing chair said that based on what he had heard, he could not reach an outcome. The hearing was adjourned.

It later emerged that the disciplinary hearing chair carried out further investigations of his own, based on what our trade union representative said, and spoke to the colleague involved. This resulted in the allegation against Mo being dismissed.