The trouble with saying the wrong thing at work

We have probably all repeated workplace gossip, but how would you feel if passing on exactly what was said left you facing the threat of formal disciplinary action?

Nicola, a council operations manager, was overheard telling another manager how a colleague had been suspended from work after using a derogatory term for a non-English worker.

Nicola in describing to her workmate exactly what had been said, used the highly offensive word.

She did not initially use the term, and it was only when the person Nicola was talking to queried if it was a particular term, which was incorrect, that Nicola corrected her and then said what it actually was.

The member of staff who overheard what Nicola said reported it to management.

When Nicola was initially summoned to her line manager’s office and quizzed about it, she admitted using the insulting phrase.

Nicola insisted it was not her view and that she simply repeated what someone else had said.

Apologetic Nicola acknowledged it was a mistake that could cause offence to someone who heard it.

Nicola, who had been in her role for 12 years, was distraught to be informed she was suspended from work for using racist and offensive language.

Her employer, as all employers should, took a zero-tolerance approach to such behaviour.

Upset Nicola pleaded her innocence. She was told a disciplinary investigation would follow and it would give her an opportunity to explain herself.

Two weeks later Nicola was invited to an investigation meeting, also known as a fact-finding meeting.

An employee does not have a right to be accompanied at an investigation/fact-finding meeting.

However, some employers will allow you to be accompanied at such a meeting by a colleague or trade union representative.

The employer permitted staff to be accompanied at an investigation meeting.

Nicola was aware a male colleague in a different team had recently been through the investigation process during which he was supported by someone who was ‘excellent.’ Nicola reached out to that worker.

He informed her he had been supported by one of our representatives and provided Nicola with contact details.

Nicola contacted our Employee Support Centre for help.

Our representative who spoke to Nicola could understand the employer’s concerns about what she said, and how someone who heard it could be offended.

But he agreed with Nicola, that in the context in which the offensive term was used, taking formal disciplinary action against her would be unduly harsh.

At the investigation meeting our representative helped Nicola to explain her case.

He told the meeting Nicola accepted the term used was completely unacceptable.

It was explained that Nicola avoided saying the offensive name at first, and used it inadvertently to correct what the colleague she was speaking to wrongly thought had been said. The investigating officer was urged to speak to that employee.

It was explained that it was in no way a term Nicola would ever use herself. It was said that Nicola was remorseful and apologetic and that she had taken significant and appropriate learning from what occurred.

Our representative made it clear Nicola was willing to work with the employer  in any way to address any concerns it had arising from what occurred.

Nicola’s long service, exemplary disciplinary record and excellent work performance were referred to in order to support the allegation was completely out of character.

Reference was made to the ACAS Code of Practice and how it  advises employers to use the discipline process to correct rather than punish and to encourage the employee rather than sanction them. It was strongly asserted, in a complete rebuttal of the allegation, that it would be an appropriate approach to take in Nicola’s case.

No further action was taken against Nicola, and instead she was issued with words of advice regarding her future conduct.