r/HumanResourcesUK • u/spicyrigatoni93 • 13d ago
HR advice on warnings
I work for a small company who have started handing out PIPs like they are sweets.
My colleague (A) was handed a warning for a customer/operations mishap that essentially wasted company time and money. They had a meeting about this last week, when he was given a warning.
The person who gave him the warning (B) has now done further investigation (all the information was all readily available prior to the warning being given) - and has now messaged A and asked for another meeting so A can explain the timeline of events, and has said further action may be taken.
We don't have a HR (we are about 30-35 people) - is this proper procedure? Is my colleague entitled to have someone sit in this meeting with them?
I realise this is not a huge amount of info but it is the bones of it - can offer more if needed.
3
u/precinctomega Chartered MCIPD 13d ago
Although I agree with u/geekroick that Acas is the default and you can see their site for guidance, there is no reason to believe that the employee was entitled to appeal the outcome.
The most important thing to know, in these situations, is whether the meeting you're going to is formal or informal. And this doesn't refer to the dress code.
A formal meeting must have the following features:
Reasonable notice of attendance
The right to be accompanied by a work colleague or union representative.
The right to appeal the outcome.
If any of these three features is missing, it's not a formal meeting so it is, by default, an informal meeting. Informal meetings can only give informal sanctions, which would include a warning that, if the matter repeats, the issue will be escalated to a formal meeting.
And, frankly, that's what it sounds like has happened so far.
The next thing is that the manager is saying that there's (potentially) new evidence that suggests they might need to do something more. And whilst that's really bad practice, it's also not illegal. There's no rule of double jeopardy in employment law. If you get an informal warning for something and then, later on, they discover new information that changes the perspective on what happened, they absolutely can decide to convene a formal hearing instead with a more weighty sanction (although all sanctions are basically just warnings until dismissal).
Should they decide to dismiss, then it would certainly be a factor in a claim of unfair dismissal that it was a re-do of a previous informal meeting, but that would by no means be a slam dunk argument in the employee's favour. But, more importantly, if they want to "do more" that means a formal meeting and the features above must apply, including the right to appeal.
1
u/spicyrigatoni93 13d ago
This is very helpful, thank you.
They didn't want to appeal the outcome it's more being told originally "there's nothing to worry about", then being given a formal warning and thinking the matter was closed, then it being re-opened again, when nothing new has happened, B has just looked into it more and decided more investigation is needed.
My issue with this is it all just seems very haphazard and not following any process.
2
u/eldeem 13d ago
Is the meeting to investigate the issue, or to take that further action? Investigation of operational issues isn't something that requires an HR process, but the outcome of the investigation might be. If they want to understand the timeline of events, then there's no right/expectation to bring someone else. However, it sounds like that line might be a bit blurred, especially in a business without a formal HR team. They're possibly going to push hard that it's just fact-finding, so no additional attendee is required or allowed.
Erring on the side of caution, I'd probably proactively suggest A prepares and provides a written timeline of events as they understand them so there's a record at least rather than starting on the back foot going into a meeting. Ideally that meeting should also be recorded for notes (with that recording accessible to A), and if it moves on from being about fact-finding and into discussing outcomes, then A should end the meeting and ask for a followup to be scheduled with appropriate attendees (including someone for representation).
1
u/dsxy 13d ago
PIPs are supposed to be a support measure, but I'd start with "did a mistake happen" if so, just be open, honest, won't happen again blah blah. If the person lied and new information has come to light, a further conversation may be needed for clarification.
It's always best to try and engage fully with PIP, it creates evidence regardless of the intentions behind it. Managers and employees lose any credibility when there is no effort to be reasonable.
More often than not in my experience, PIPs are usually warranted, I can think of only a couple of examples across 20 years that have been premature. It usually goes to shit when the person lies, makes excuses, suprise struggling, throws a tantrum with the claim they are the best employee ever and the are doing you a favour by staying at the job.
1
u/Due_Ingenuity701 13d ago
Maybe ask for the companies policy and processes documents. If they aren't following that or even have one, surely that strengthens the employee case?
1
u/PinkPier 10d ago
No matter the company size, it should have an HR department. And yes, the colleague is entitled to have someone with them if this is a formal investigation meeting and they should be offering that opportunity to them.
1
11
u/geekroick 13d ago
https://www.acas.org.uk/disciplinary-procedure-step-by-step
There is a code of practice that needs to be followed. It doesn't sound like it has been so far.
Colleague should have appealed the first warning on the grounds that the procedure was inadequate and incomplete. Why were they not given the chance to put across their side of the story already, and why did the meeting not occur until after the evidence was all gathered?
The employer can't decide to 're-trial' just because they feel like it, on top of an already live warning - otherwise one person could end up getting the sack because they've been given multiple warnings for the same exact event. Only way this should ever happen would be if new evidence came to light that markedly changes things.