 |
 |
> Ian B writes: > ------------ > I believe in this instance (totally different from the example > that started > this thread) the crime detection/prevention exemption would apply. But > internal discipline is not crime. If giving the information to the > individual would stop the action, is that not what you intend in the first > place? If giving the detail would allow them time before the hearing to > prepare a defence, is that not just being fair and remembering > the person has > human rights? > I beg to differ - the employer's objective is surely (justifiably?) to identify whether there has been misconduct and, if so, to be in a position to take disciplinary action against the perpetrator, as a means of stopping the conduct now and removing the risk for the future. There has to be a certain amount of investigation prior to the formal launch of any disciplinary proceedings - the individual certainly has to be given time to prepare a defence, but this clock does not start ticking until after the formal start of the disciplinary process. The analogy is with the police investigation prior to charges being laid. The defendant has very clear legal rights to prepare a defence once charged, but cannot (and should not?) be in a position to take preemptive action against an investigation. I agree that internal discipline may not be crime, but my question is whether the same kind of exemption ought not, logically, to apply to internal employment situations. Iseem to remeber that the original question did refer to investigations in an employment context. Richard Burrow >