Pharmacist as Scapegoat

Recently, this trend has worsened significantly. Whilst in some cases employers have acted properly, on the whole our experience is that the action they take is inappropriate or is disproportionate. In many cases the pharmacist in question becomes a scapegoat.

Employer’s Role/Duty

The most common allegation made against a pharmacist is that he/she has bullied subordinate staff. Employers must treat such complaints seriously by investigating the complaint and deciding whether or not it has any merit. If the complaint is upheld, the employer needs to take action to show that improper behaviour is not condoned and the disciplinary action taken is appropriate.

Our Concerns

Lack of fairness - guilty from the outset.

In nearly all the cases we deal with, the individual is considered “guilty” from the outset. Our members are made aware that allegations have been made however there is a real reluctance by employers to provide specific details. In many cases pharmacists arrive for these meetings to face irrelevant and non focused questions and often are not even told what is being alleged against them.

We have received reports from members that some individuals conducting these meetings have been aggressive, raising voices, pointing fingers at interviewees and rather than taking an independent view of things, seem to have already made up their minds.

Lack of clarity

If statements or details are provided they can still be very vague; for example that the pharmacist has been “rude”. However, they do not state how the pharmacist’s behaviour could be considered rude by referring to what was said or done. This is of great concern as without specific detail, how can an employer expect you to put forward your defence?

Lack of experience

In many cases, the interviewer has had no previous experience of dealing with meetings of this nature or has experience and training but is still unaware of what their role is in the process. In one recent case an employer, when challenged by PDA admitted that it did not provide training to its senior staff on how they should handle disciplinary meetings.

Lack of process

Many incidents show a complete lack of procedure when employers arrange and conduct these meetings. These have to be in line with the Statutory minimum procedures and indeed employer policy. These include employers failing to issue a written invite to pharmacists required to attend disciplinary meetings; failing to give sufficient time to prepare for the meeting e.g. just 24 hours notice; failing to inform them that they have a right to be accompanied by a fellow colleague or trade union representative and failing to write explaining what the final outcome has been.

Grievance Meetings

For those pharmacists who have raised a grievance in respect of the behaviour of their colleagues or their line manager, similar problems exists. Despite providing sufficient detail concerning their grievance, some interviewers fail to appreciate the seriousness of their complaint. Furthermore, the quality of the investigations that are carried out can be extremely poor. Statements are rarely taken from relevant witnesses and when those identified as being a problem are interviewed the minutes tend to reveal that the interviewer accepts what they have said at face value with no further questions.

Lack of transparency

Perhaps even worse than this, based on actually attending these meetings to support our members, is the attitude of some of those who conduct grievance meetings. Some interviewers are clearly not happy to be conducting these meetings and attempt to discourage pharmacists from bringing the grievance in the first place. Some interviewers have stated that the subject of the grievance would never have done or said what was being alleged as the interviewer knows the person well or because they are a principal pharmacist or Area Manager and no such person would ever do such a thing! This shows a complete lack of probity and transparency. The fact that an interviewer knows the individual complained of well and makes their views known without having even attempted to ask that individual for their version of events calls into question the entire process.

Lack of balance

Whilst under investigation a pharmacist may be disciplined if on the balance of probabilities his/her employer considers they have behaved as alleged. If however a pharmacist raises a grievance, it appears that the burden of proof needed to substantiate their complaint increases. Some employers indicate that 100% positive proof is required or the grievance will not be upheld.

There appears to be one rule for when a pharmacist is under investigation and another for the staff and the line manager when concerns are raised regarding their conduct or capability.

Cases on Record

• Pharmacist A was supplied with statements that had been taken from staff regarding his inappropriate behaviour. The identity of the complainants were concealed by the employer making it impossible to put forward his version of events. His employer saw nothing wrong with this and could not understand why the pharmacist deserved sufficient information to put forward a defence to the complaint.

• Pharmacist B was required to answer allegations concerning her failure to supervise staff working in a late night pharmacy. It was accepted that she was newly qualified and had received no training or guidance regarding her specific managerial responsibilities. Nevertheless, her employer sought to discipline her. Fortunately for this member we were able to intervene and the result was that her employer quashed the disciplinary meeting, issued an apology and arranged for the appropriate training to be provided.

• Pharmacist C who had submitted a grievance which was in the process of being investigated was suddenly suspended from work and then transferred to another department before the conclusion of her grievance because someone subsequently made a complaint against her.

• Pharmacist D was informed that her employer accepted that the person named in her grievance had behaved inappropriately. However, the employer considered that because he did not intend to cause offence, he would not be disciplined, neither was there a need for any remedial training.

• Pre-Registration graduate E who had raised informal grievances which were ignored, then raised a formal grievance. She was told that she should investigate her own formal grievance by approaching potential witnesses to take statements. The individual conducting the formal grievance meeting failed to realise that this was his responsibility as the person tasked with dealing with the grievance and that such a request could be regarded as interfering with witnesses and could compromise the entire grievance process.

Learning points

If you are ever called to an investigation or disciplinary meeting or you wish to issue a grievance, we suggest you consider the following;

1. Investigation Meetings

• Establish what the allegations are at the outset of the meeting before you provide your version of events. Ask questions which will assist in identifying the individual who complained, what is alleged you have said or done, when and where and what supporting evidence is available.
• Provide your version of events ensuring that you cover all the allegations that have been raised. Refer to any witnesses that will support your recollection of events.
• Take a representative or companion with you if you are permitted to have one present. If you are a PDA member, then make contact as soon as you can.

2. Disciplinary Meetings

• Ensure that you have received a letter inviting you to attend a meeting, that you have been given a reasonable period of time to prepare for the meeting and to secure the attendance of a representative.
• Establish that you have all the information that the investigators have which they will rely on during the meeting.
• Ask to review any CCTV footage that may exist if available.
• Ensure that you receive the outcome of the meeting in writing.
• Challenge any decisions that you do not agree with within the requisite time frame.

3. Grievance Meetings

• Attempt to resolve grievances informally if at all possible – but always make a written record.
• If seeking formal resolution always put your grievance in writing and keep a record.
• Attend meetings with a representative.
• Ask about the experience of the individual conducting the grievance and whether they have received training.
• Ensure that you receive the outcome of your grievance in writing.
• Challenge any decisions that you do not agree with within the requisite time frame.

On a final note, to avoid being made a scapegoat in the frst place you should ensure that you document any incidents that could give rise to a complaint so that a contemporaneous record exists.

In particular if you are a manager and your staff behave inappropriately or you have serious concerns regarding their capability, you need to make a record of this so that an audit trail exists, discuss matters with them on an informal basis and if necessary with your line manager or HR function. Ignoring the diffculties that exist in your workplace in the hope that staff behaviour will improve or management will eventually see the light and support you is not an option. If you take this road you may well fnd yourself under investigation and being made the scapegoat.