Its normally only the person whose doing the investigation, which may be anything from their line-manager to HR if appropriate. After all how many people does it take to ask someone a few questions?


No doubt at a government funded School or public authority have their own set of rules covering such matters. I have absolutely no experience of this except it appears rather over the the top.

In reply to David Perry:

Thanks David, do you think it's over the top because a union rep is attending or HR? Sorry didn't understand what you meant by that. I always thought in investigation meetings there should be an investigator (who has had no prior involvement in the case) a note taker (in this case HR), the person who the allegation has been made against and if relevant their companion/union representative.

In reply to David Perry:

Agree with the other David: there is no *statutory* right at all to having any companion at investigation meetings

So, everything is governed by particular workplace terms and conditions and rules and practices for such matters.

In situations where there is a statutory right, it's usual protocol for the HR bod to act as 'clerk to the court' ie keep quiet unless asked or moved to advise on procedural etc matters and maybe to take notes. And it's usual for the companion such as union rep to be allowed to address the meeting and generally act as advocate but not to answer questions put directly to the employee

Turning an investigation meeting into a big semi formal event with a cast of thousands seems a daft idea to me too.

In reply to David:

Thank you David, I know it seems over the top but I'm afraid that's education environment for you! I haven't seen this particular school's disciplinary policy (we are still in the process of adopting 1 policy for the Trust, so each school currently uses their own and it it all last minute).
During the meeting is the investigator able to provide witness accounts (with names etc.) of the witnesses version of events or should this information be left to a disciplinary hearing, should there be one.

In reply to Sharon :

Hi Sharon

This IMHO represents a classic example of how public-sector and similar organisations can become inefficient and generally unfit for purpose simply because they are immune from ever being closed-down because they're ineffective and uncompetitive.

This is of course why monopolies, whether public sector or private, are a very 'bad thing' in terms of economic utility.

But all that's another, far wider, issue, for another forum and another day.

In reply to David:

The difficulty is in education that an allegation from a child against a Teacher ( and they can becsll too common) can very quickly spiral out of control and very quickly either end a teachers career or at the very least end it in that school and the surrounding area. ( regardless of the truth)

For that reason I understand why a Teacher would want a TU Rep there from day one and why many schools allow it.

Your role will largely to be to make notes and to offer any guidance on policy / procedure as appropriate. In Education ( and for various reasons I have sat on both sides) TU Reps are allowed very wide licence in their questions / approach.

But most educational TU reps I have worked with actually are very reasonable and practical. Few have been into game playing ( generally they are too busy). So I wouldn’t worry your role is likely to be mostly silent and administrative but know who you can call if you need advice / help.

In reply to Sharon :

In response to your final question it’s a very delicate question. The investigation needs to be open enough to allow the employee to give as much information as they can to allow a judgement to be made as to the merit of taking this to a dusciplinary.

But with children involved you need to be very careful about releasing names and I would be seeking the views of your safeguarding officer as to if these need to be anonymous. But without knowing nature of allegations it’s hard to advise further.

In reply to Keith:

Thanks for your helpful responses. I have just found out that the witnesses have not been interviewed as part of the investigation as yet. The investigating officer proposes to interview the employee (accused of the allegation) and part of this process will be to talk about any witnesses. I would have thought this should have been covered when the accused was spoken to initially about the allegation so that any witnesses could be interviewed prior to their meeting. Not sure if this makes any difference but just a thought.

In reply to Sharon :

It’s not uncommon for an allegation to be raised with who it’s against before others are interviewed.

keith made some good points, it is helpful to have the TU rep their for the employee and the employer. as speaking from being ex TU rep it is so the process can be observered correctly and followed correctly. as well as support for the employee in siturations like this not knowing whats going to be said.