Sometimes it’s not about theft, abuse or accessing pornography, it’s just sheer bloody mindedness.
I am a senior manager and I chair disciplinary hearings. People either deny doing anything wrong or deny that what they did was wrong. “I didn’t slap that elderly resident despite what the witnesses say” or “I don’t think these pictures are offensive my friends thought they were a laugh”.
It’s not unusual for an individual who feels they have been done an injustice like being over looked for a promotion to interpret all subsequent actions by their manager as further evidence that they are being treated unfairly. A seemingly trivial dispute about moving a desk closer to a window becomes a matter of a battle of wills. In some cases this progresses from challenging a management decision to refusing to acknowledge the manager’s authority.
In this particular case it started with a filing cabinet. Whose was it? What was in it? Why were they refusing to open it? The filing cabinet was in the office but it did not belong to the department. Some files were missing, the office had been searched the manager wanted to look inside the filing cabinet. The individual who had brought it claimed it contained only their personal items and refuse to open it.
The manager had the filing cabinet removed. In response the individual reported the “theft” to the police. After repeated requests for the key the manager forced open the cabinet and found the missing files. An investigation followed. The individual refused to answer any questions. Why where the files in the cabinet? Who put them there? Why did they refuse to open the cabinet?
They were references to a management conspiracy; management wrong doing was implied around inappropriate, unauthorised purchases, even hints at sexual misdemeanours.
A new allegation emerged that the individual had been telephoning colleagues whilst suspended from work despite being instructed to have no contact.
The first disciplinary hearing was postponed at the request of the individual who claimed they were suffering from stress and not fit to attend. The day before the rearranged disciplinary hearing the individual again requested a postponement via their union rep. Although the individual complained they continue to be unwell they were unable to produce a sicknote from their GP. The hearing went ahead in their absence.
They instructed their union rep not to contest the allegations but to offer an apology for any inconvenience or distress their behaviour had caused. There was no written apology, no character references and no explanations.
Management produced a stream of witnesses to evidence a history of obstruction and antagonism. A portrait was draw of an argumentative, uncooperative, and inflexible member of staff who routinely challenged their manager’s authority. But who could be pleasant and helpful to colleagues. Management was adamant that the trust between employee and manager had been irretrievably broken. Management maintained they could no longer have confidence in someone who refused to carry out a reasonable management request and who refused to cooperate with managers.
If you were chairing the disciplinary hearing what would your decision be?
Blair McPherson