• Replies 8 replies
  • Subscribers 7 subscribers
  • Views 1005 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

8

Advice Required - Employee Incident

Clare

| 0 Posts

3 Jul, 2017 13:23

Hi All,

I am relatively new to the world of HR and work for a small family business so am seeking advice on the following incident which has taken place between two employees:

Who the Employees are:

Employee A - Apprentice Electrician

Employee B - Electrician

Employee C - Senior Electrician

The Incident

Whilst on site last week, Employee A repeatedly made derogatory and offensive comments about Employee B's Fiancee, Employee B repeatedly said to Employee A you're overstepping the mark please stop. Employee A has continued with the comments to which Employee B has advised "if you don't stop I will hit you". Employee A has continued and then said "I'd like to see you try", to which Employee B has hit him. Both continued to work thereafter. The incident was reported by Employee C, who is senior to both Employee A and B.

As soon as we were made aware of the incident (by Employee C) we asked all three employees to write a written account of the incident and to attend a meeting (individually) the following morning.

Employee C's written account and his feedback in the meeting correlates with Employee B; that he was severely provoked (and has been for several weeks) and gave Employee A several warnings to not continue with the comments and Employee A was not injured or knocked out.

Employee A's written account is very contradictory and doesn't correlate with either B or C's accounts - he advises that he had no warnings, that he was knocked out (but did not seek medical advice and hasn't done so since) and that the incident happened someplace different etc. Employee B is remorseful of his actions but believes he is adult enough to continue working with Employee A. Employee A has said he doesn't want to work with Employee B again unless he is paid more money or doesn't work with his again (the latter is not optional as only a small business so the likelihood of them needing to work on the same site is very high).

With being a small family business we have never had to deal with an incident to this scale (usually just a reprimand if someone is not working to the standards expected), so we are unsure how to progress. We feel that Employee B was severely provoked (the comments were extremely derogatory) but he went too far hitting Employee A and should get a first and final written warning. We also feel that Employee A should have a written warning as his account of events is not correct and he made derogatory comments and continued doing so despite being warned to stop. They will then be both expected to work together again.

Would you agree with this course of action? 

Sorry for the long-winded post.

Many thanks

Clare

1005 views
  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 11:44

    Generally speaking, an act of assault on a colleague is considered gross misconduct, regardless of provocation. Even the "warnings" would normally constitute a threat of assault and be subject to disciplinary action. So whilst A sounds like a total pain, B is, by most standards, rather more in the wrong than his junior colleague.

    Employers and workplaces can always have different standards about these things, of course, but I would never advise an employer to be seen to tolerate physical assault. Given the alleged provocation and assuming a history of otherwise exemplary performance, a final formal warning would seem to be the most appropriate response.

    Meanwhile, A...

    How long has A been in the business? As an apprentice, I'm assuming less than two years, but what are the terms of the apprenticeship? You say that his account is "not correct", but it sounds more like his account simply doesn't reflect that of B and C, who are his superiors and who, presumably, could potentially have agreed a story between them. Rather, it might be said that A's account is uncorroborated - and it's hardly a disciplinary offence to make an uncorroborated account, unless there is incontrovertible evidence that his account is false in some respect.

    Rather, B has made a complaint, pursuant to his disciplinary action for assault, that A persists in making unwelcome and unpleasant comments about B's fiancee. In which case, A should certainly be told, clearly and explicitly, to stop doing so and have the consequences of failing to stop made very clear (depending upon the terms of his employment). I would term this an "informal warning" - it doesn't require a formal investigation, hearing or right of appeal: it's just a written account that A has been told to stop doing it and what the consequences would be if he fails.

    However, A sounds fairly objectionable and immature, so it might be worth reassuring yourself of the conditions of his employment and apprenticeship to be sure that you can safely dispense with him if (when?) it becomes necessary.
  • David

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 11:58

    In reply to Robey:

    Just to say that I completely agree with Robey's comments, especially that you would be well advised to check that the apprentice was originally taken on under the arrangements that ensure that their unfair dismissal etc status is no different to any other employee. If they weren't, you may have a potential problem if the apprentice continues to be irredeemably troublesome.
  • Clare

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 12:11

    In reply to Robey:

    Thanks for the reply.

    I agree and that is the dilemma we have and something we have never had to deal with before (we have been very fortunate as a business). Employee B has had exemplary performance prior to this and it is completely out of character, hence why we are looking at going down a final warning route.

    Employee A is in his third year of his Apprentice but only been with us for a year. I haven't elaborated on his account of events too much, but do feel that it has been fabricated (said he was knocked out, felt ill etc. but continued working and didn't seek any medical advice that day or thereafter) and when asked what action he would like to derive from this he advised that he doesn't want to work with Employee B again or he wants a pay rise in order to work with him. Morally, as a Company we feel that the comments were derogatory and of a highly sexual nature - we appreciate with the nature of the business there will be 'banter' but feel this is above and beyond. We do feel that he is being 'stoked' in the background slightly so are aware that we need to follow procedures properly.

    We are certain that Employee A and C have not collaborated a story between them as Employee C contacted us with his version of events as soon as the incident occurred, Employee A and B were then immediately contacted for their version and they were all asked to put together a written statement to bring to the office the following morning.

    Their behaviour had the potential to bring the company into disrepute and had it been witnessed we may have been thrown off a £200,000 project, which to us is huge.
  • Clare

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 12:23

    In reply to David:

    Hi David,

    I've checked the Apprentice's contract and the procedures are no different to any other employee thankfully!
  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 15:12

    In reply to Clare:

    But he's in an apprenticeship scheme provided by an outside institution, then, if he's only spending one year of a three-year apprenticeship with you? That will give you another avenue of recourse: to raise his behaviour with his course assessor. These courses often come with a code of acceptable conduct that students sign to say they'll be timely, honest and well-behaved and not bring the college or whatever into disrepute, so their assessors should take poor conduct very seriously.

    This would allow a two-pronged approach: from you ("stop it or you're fired") and from the provider ("stop it or we'll kick you off").
  • David Perry

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 16:16

    In reply to Clare:

    Whatever you do, the apprentice has learned a valuable lesson about insulting or provoking colleagues. Or indeed anyone else!!
  • David

    | 0 Posts

    4 Jul, 2017 17:20

    In reply to David Perry:

    Hi Clare

    Assume the apprentice is employed directly by your own employers?

    It doesn't really matter much what terms are in the contract - what matters is whether or not when the apprentice was first employed he was given the usual written statement of main terms of employment and that it was made clear in writing that he was following an apprenticeship as an electrician.

    By the way, is he on an EMTA maintenance etc apprenticeship or is it a JTL (or whatever) electrical contracting / installation apprenticeship? - just that, if it's the latter, there are usually employer constraints against dismissal incorporated into the standard apprenticeship agreement.
  • Clare

    | 0 Posts

    7 Jul, 2017 12:23

    In reply to David:

    Thanks for all your replies, most helpful having an outside perspective!

    Clare