A football coach recently made the headlines when allegations of racists comments and behaviour were upheld . However rather than a life long ban that some had expected the disciplinary panel decided a reprimand was sufficient as they accepted the individual had not been ,”consciously racist”. After getting off with such a light punishment you might have assumed that the individual would have adopted a low profile instead they made a public statement saying they felt they were due an apology by those who had called him a racist and put him through such a protracted and stressful process. I have come across similar cases in my role as a senior manager. Following an investigation into a serious allegation(s) a disciplinary hearing finds the individual guilty but the panel accepts the individual mitigation that they did not realise what they were doing was so wrong. It was just , “banter”. It not always about racist, or homophobic bullying, it could be about making false expenses claims in which the individual claims it was ,”carelessness” not deliberate fraud. As regular a chair of disciplinary panels I heard cases of verbal and physical abuse by employees against the vulnerable people they were caring for. They frequently used the defence that no one had told them it wasn’t acceptable to swear at service users or slap them. They claimed not to have had training and be working without supervision. The implication being management was at fault. I was surprised how many members of the panel wanted to give the individual a second chance. It was the same with employees found guilty of accessing pornography at work on their office computer and in many cases circulating it to colleagues “as a joke”. There were always those who wanted to give people a second chance even when the individual had maintained through out the process that they didn’t think they had done anything wrong because the people receiving the material shared their sense of humour. This is one reason why organisations whistle blowing arrangements are ineffective. It takes courage to report the activities of colleagues which appear to be ignored by line managers. The individual is frequently identified during any subsequent disciplinary hearing as they are a key witness. They know they will be ostracised by colleagues as. a traitor or snitch, and are likely to be subject to intimidation. This they endure because they feel so strongly about the wrong doing that is taking place. Imagine then how they feel when those found guilty are retuned to work on a second chance. Often retuning to work alongside the whistle blower. Whilst each case must be decided on its merits if the individual doesn’t genuinely recognise they did something very wrong then what is the piont of giving them a second chance? Every allegation, investigation and disciplinary hearing is a test of the organisations resolve in tackling abuse and discrimination. Every time it fails that test the organisation sends out a message that it is not serious about changing.
