MANAGEMENT BELIEVES FAKE ANONYMOUS LETTER OVER TRUTH
Highlights
- Failure of Natural Justice
- Personal 'observant' attacks on victim, not performance related
- Company pursues anonymous complaint
- Company told complaint is fake - not written by said person
- Company proceeds to intervieww staff, breech of process,
- Investigation used orchestrated questioning to 'establish character' not bullying incidents
- No bully evidence found
- Company proceeds to punish innocent victim even when complaint exposed as fake
- Victim stressed goes on leave
- Miraculous opportunity to restructure and make victim redundant-terminated
This story is very disturbing, as it exposes the failed 'Natural Justice' experienced by the victim, and the irony that the 'alledged bully' was infact actually the victim of bullying himself.
In this case an innocent man was the target of a campaign by 'someone' and insider who was likely sick and tired of the 'domestics' at the office, a jealous peer who wanted the job and succeed in the restructure? or a jealous suitor for the victims partner.
Either way the HR team have a lot to answer for in failing to snuff out the FAKE letter by an ANONYMOUS complainant, and realising the damage it could do to the victim.
Read on ......
‘Staff interviews did not support allegations of harassment’
Manager axed after FALSE ‘bullying’ ALLEGATIONS wins £33,600
A manager of a children's fostering service who was axed through redundancy shortly after receiving a final warning for alleged bullying and harassment has been awarded £33,695 compensation.
A Glasgow employment tribunal held the bullying and harassment allegations were not supported in an investigation and the original complaint had come in the form of an anonymous letter, which the supposed author denied sending.
David Scullion, 46, from Elderslie in Renfrewshire, had been a social worker with Fosterplus (Fostercare) Ltd, a fostering agency, and subsequently became one of two regional managers based in Paisley. His partner Roberta Shields also worked for the agency, usually working from the Paisley office.
An anonymous handwritten letter was received in July 2007, purporting to be from a foster carer, alleging that Mr Scullion used "vile, abusive and bullying language" towards her.
The complaint added: "David Scullion is a large man and most people are scared of him including many carers and his staff." The letter also claimed Mr Scullion argued with Ms Shields in the office, making others uncomfortable and embarrassed.
Management conducted an investigation. General feedback was that Mr Scullion had an intimidating manner and could be moody. Interviewees were asked if they were scared of him.
No-one said they were but some said they could understand how other people could be.
Most staff who were interviewed also said they found it difficult to have Mr Scullion and Ms Shields in the same office as they had had a number of arguments.
When the foster carer purported to have sent the letter was contacted, she denied she had done so.
Mr Scullion said he was unaware there was a problem and that if he had upset anyone he would apologise. He was issued with a final written warning, which was to remain on his file for two years.
His appeal against the warning was unsuccessful. He became unwell and was unable to return to work. During his absence, a restructuring programme was implemented. The post of regional manager was to be made redundant and new posts of operations director and quality assurance manager created.
Mr Scullion was advised his role was redundant and he was invited to apply for the post of operations director.
He was subsequently advised he had not been shortlisted for the operations director's post. The other regional manager was appointed based on attendance, qualifications, technical expertise, disciplinary record and productivity. Mr Scullion scored less than his colleague on attendance and disciplinary record.
The tribunal did not consider it was fair to use attendance in these circumstances as Mr Scullion had never been off prior to his long-term sickness after the disciplinary hearing.
In addition, the use of his disciplinary record was unfair. The tribunal considered the final written warning imposed on him was unreasonable. Staff interviews did not support the serious allegations of bullying and harassment.
In the tribunal's written decision, employment judge Susan Walker said: "At worst they indicated that the claimant had a loud and intimidating manner and that staff found it difficult to deal with the fact that the claimant and his partner both worked in the same office."
No reasonable employer would have concluded he had been guilty of bullying and harassment, she concluded.
The tribunal ordered Fosterplus (Fostercare) Ltd of Ampthill, Bedfordshire, to pay Mr Scullion £33,695
No comments:
Post a Comment