Thankyou for your reply. I am a little confused as to the different responses I have read to the same question as well as what I have read on various websites. The over riding consensus was you had to be advised of the allegations, although your comment on disturbing the integrity of the investigation is one that has been noted on the initial advice received. Notice was received on 18/5 of suspension for three weeks,but maybe longer.
A previous investigation was finalised after 14 weeks, told to take a couple of days off but then resumed work whilst investigation proceeded.This previous investigation was finalised on 3/5 and when the second lot of allegations were advised was told that they related to something that had happened back in February.
On reading the most recent allegations received tonight, they all relate to breaking confidentiality of the previous investigation by telling people that I was under investigation. Of the four allegations three relate to "you were overheard talking about being investigated', 'what I was supposed to have said about a patient at one stage, and my thoughts at one stage of it felt like a witch hunt.
the latest allegation was I was overheard talking to someone one day before I received the allegations and telling them I was on enforced leave.
Basically all allegations revolve around breach of confidentiality by stating that I was under investigation at one stage and then suspended. The boss admitted that he was having trouble substantiating the allegations but considering his previous comment that he was disappointed that only 3 of the 4 allegations were previously upheld, assumed he would be trying his hardest.
How do you defend yourself or is it literally rule of law and regulations that if its stated you must not discuss the investigation, you must not say you are under investigation, anything at all, that that is enough to suspend you?
