Suspension part of the process in misconduct

Worse is the question of who is initially responsible for investigations and taking matters forward.

Is it the internal auditors, the Auditor General’s Department, managers, the Public Service Commission, the ministry responsible or the police? Suspension is part of the investigation process in a disciplinary procedure for many employers. It is standard practice that suspension will normally be appropriate where: if proven, the employee’s conduct would be sufficiently serious to be grounds for summary dismissal; the employer has reason to believe that the employee might deliberately cause damage or create problems if allowed to remain at the workplace; or the employee’s continuing presence at work might prejudice the investigation in some way. Examples include where an employee has threatened violence or damage to property, where it is not possible to properly investigate the allegation if the employee remains at work (such as where they may destroy evidence or attempt to influence witnesses).

There is some confusion that suspension and dismissal are hinged on whether employees are found guilty in a court of law, ie, the “beyond reasonable doubt doctrine” in criminal matters. This is not the case in employment matters where the doctrine of “on the balance of probabilities” that the offence was committed is applied and appropriate sanctions are applied.

It is preposterous that employees who have fraud charges laid against them are expected to report for duty. What if they were charged with murder? Does this bring back memories of the fiasco at SPORTT involving hundreds of millions of dollars?

Jim Jhinkoo via email