Disciplinary
Client: Confidential (private equity)
Location: London
Date: April/May 2003
The client, “A3”, had been using a dry cleaning service which collected and returned items of clothing directly from and to the office premises. A3’s receptionist, “Megan”, was responsible for collecting cash from her colleagues in order to pay the laundry service on delivery.
When A3 received an itemised bill from the laundry service, showing over £2,000 due, Megan was challenged and explained that she had not handed over her colleagues’ cash because she had personal financial problems, had had “needed to borrow” the money. She told A3 that she would repay the debt through deductions from her salary.
A3 was not satisfied with Megan’s explanation, or suggested solution, and commissioned us to run a formal disciplinary procedure.
Just days before the disciplinary meeting was scheduled to take place, A3 received a letter from Megan in which she asserted that she had been subjected to sexual harassment from one of the firm’s bankers with whom she said she had had a brief relationship several months previously. Megan asserted that she had ended the relationship but the banker had not accepted her decision and had continued to “stalk’ her ever since. She alleged that it was his behaviour that contributed to what she described as her “mistake” (the theft of her colleagues’ money) and she advised A3 that if they were to drop the disciplinary action against her and compensate her for loss of office, then she would not pursue a claim against the banker.
Megan had either made an assumption about the likely outcome of a disciplinary (“loss of office”) or she was projecting her preference to move on. In either case, A3 were equally keen that their relationship with Megan should end – not least because of the misconduct, but also because of her exceptionally poor attendance and performance record.
We were confident that a disciplinary process would lead to a dismissal (although the attendance and performance record would not be pertinent to the procedure). The allegations that Megan was making would need to be considered as part of the investigation, notwithstanding the tone of blackmail that were associated with them.
A3 were anxious that the problem would ‘go away’ and their inclination was to make Megan a financial offer within a compromise agreement. Our view was that where an implication of sexual discrimination might be stated or implied, a compromise agreement would not provide immunity from legal action. Indeed, a compromise agreement might be interpreted by the courts as a tacit admission of culpability and, as such, would serve no benefit for the company.
We recommended that A3 should consider the implications to business culture and morale in the event that Megan were effectively ‘rewarded’ for stealing from her colleagues.
The allegations that Megan had made with regards the banker constituted a notification of grievance and as such we, on behalf of A3, invited Megan to a grievance meeting. (Prior to this the banker was consulted, provided his version of events, and confirmed that he would attend a grievance meeting if so required.) A separate date, slightly later, was set for the disciplinary meeting. Megan was reminded that the outcome of the disciplinary had yet to be decided, and several outcomes were possible, of which ‘loss of office’ was the most severe.
Megan did not attend either the grievance or the disciplinary meeting. On behalf of A3 we wrote to Megan and invited her to schedule alternative dates, advising that both procedures would conclude in her absence, if necessary.
Both the grievance and the disciplinary took place without Megan. With regards the grievance it was concluded that without evidence to support Megan’s allegations there were, equally, no grounds. Megan was advised of her right to appeal. In the disciplinary case, and in the absence of any defence, it was decided that the theft constituted gross misconduct and Megan was summarily dismissed. Again, she was advised of her right to appeal.
Client Comment:
“You made all the right calls on this. Well done for sticking with it, for challenging us, and for helping us to win through.”
