20260430_143656 (1)

0:00

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Well, it was the meeting you were supposed to have, I think, last week before that you missed. Okay. I'm not quite sure how you want the meeting to go. Do I just speak? I've never been in a meeting like this before. You just spoke. As to why I want to appeal? As to what I need to consider in terms of your appeal. What do you think was unfair? What do you think was not considered? Okay. I think...

0:40

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

I'm going to explain the reasons why I wanted to appeal and what I thought was a bit unfair. And then I also have a few questions on the charge itself. So I did mention also on my appeal letter that it is based on some procedural reasons as well as some substantive reasons.

1:11

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

So the first one with the procedural, it was in relation to not being awarded an opportunity or an investigative discussion.

1:25

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

where the charge is stated as to, okay, this is what you're being charged of, and then I wanted an opportunity to respond to the offense or the charge. I remember... So I was going to touch on that, and I remember having a conversation with Kulane, and Nicole was there, and his exact words was that, this is not an investigation.

1:51

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

um this is just me trying to get clarity on your statement okay so there was no way in that conversation where it was um alluded or explained that it is an investigative discussion in terms of i'm being disciplined on a specific offense like he literally said he just wanted clarity on a few things on my statement so um and also

2:17

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

um how that yeah that's how the conversation happened and the questions he was asking was literally asking about my statement um that was the first part so just with that right you understand investigative discussion is not a disciplinary discussion yes discussion is a clarity it's really just again

2:41

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

your understanding of what is happening if you've written a statement then it is around hitting it so I'm needing to understand where you and because I was so where did you and Kulani miss each other because if you're saying you've written a statement all right that's what you said you said it was clarity on statements I'm assuming you wrote a statement

3:07

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

So yeah, we did send a statement, an email explaining what happened on my side. And so then what they did was they came to get clarity on your statement that you had written. I didn't hear the question, you got cut. And so then what they came to do was they looked at your statement and then they came and they got more clarity on that statement.

3:29

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Yes, and the exact words that he used, he said, this is not an investigation. I just want to get clarity on the statement. So for him saying that, for me, does not mean that there is like a form of investigation or discussion, because also there wasn't a stating of an offense or a charge for me to be able to respond to that charge. So it was a matter of, please tell us what happened on your side.

4:00

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

okay yeah i understand so continue um and i i don't know if you are aware of this but um based on how

4:14

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

I've also been trained on how to conduct investigative discussion. There's a form also that we completed called an investigative discussion where you sit with the staff member and you explain this is the offence or the charge and this is what happened and then you award the staff member an opportunity to respond stating their reasons and facts. So there is an investigative discussion.

4:41

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

that is completed so i think for me when after that meeting where he was saying he just wanted clarity on my statement immediately after that then there comes a sanction where i wasn't awarded that opportunity or that process um clearly and stated

5:00

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

detail yeah okay okay so that talks from a procedural perspective what you think had gone wrong right yes from that perspective i will need to discuss that with them but in my understanding or just from a process perspective

5:23

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

If somebody's not going to be taken to a hearing, so I think part of, and so I wasn't there, so I can't talk to what was said and how it was said, and that I need to go and find out from both Nicole and from Caroline. There was a statement, and then you need to just get your view, clarity on the statement. Your version would be the statement.

5:46

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Yes, technically, but there wasn't a charge. Like, for example, the warning came back and said, you're charged with gross negligence. So during the investigative discussion, the charge is brought forward and then... Gross negligence? On negligence? Yes. Which was it? Gross negligence? It was... Let me just check. It's written. Gross negligence.

6:13

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

So you were charged with gross negligence? Yes. Slash gross derilition of duty. I also have questions on that charge. That's what I said after I've explained my part. I'll just go through that and have questions. Because I didn't get the opportunity to also ask questions on the charge. Because during investigative discussion, that's where also you get an opportunity too.

6:39

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Ask questions on the charge or the person who's giving you the investigate discussion explains the charge of offense. Do you want me to display it? No, just send it to me. I just need to see what you were charged with. Okay, I'm going to just forward. Your actual warning, you can just send that to me. I'm forwarding an email that has the warning and the appeal form.

7:13

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

There's another document here. Let me just send all of this. I'm forwarding it. I've sent. It should be in five seconds. I can tell you now that you should have been charged with negligence, not gross negligence. They're giving me a fine order of the morning. Otherwise, you should have been taken to a yearning. Yes, it is. I was about to say it's cutting a bit.

8:52

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Okay. So, it is. I mean, like, I can hear myself. So with gross negligence, and gross negligence of duty, the sanctions should be against myself. She should have been taken into a disciplinary then. They've issued me with a fine word in the morning, so I need to stand up. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so

9:30

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

I didn't hear much. I heard, I can tell you now. And then there was something about the sanction. It kept on cutting.

10:26

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Hello? Can you hear me or am I still? Yes, yes I can hear you. So basically what I was saying was that if the child should be put up, she should have gone into a disciplinary area. If the child should be put up with negligence, I can understand why this would be a final disciplinary warning. So I need to understand why you got a final disciplinary for gross negligence and it didn't go into a hearing because the exemption for gross negligence is a dismissal.

11:00

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Not the final written warning. For negligence, it's the final written warning. I just, I need to clarify and understand what the thinking was here. Okay. So, I will go through that, but, so, this is why I wanted to say, because if they just had, if we looked at your statement, and it was just a discussion, we said, okay, we've had a discussion with you, we've heard your part, seen your statement,

11:35

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

I understand where that can come from and that doesn't necessarily require investigative discussion if they've had a conversation with you around and you've submitted your statement rather than they've had that if they were going to take you into a hearing then I would have expected an ID to be done but I will clarify that with them and what they're thinking was there just in terms of the substantive

12:04

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

What were the concerns that you wanted to arise with regards to that? Okay, so I think the first one, I had a few questions also on the charge, and I think my reasons for the appeal under the substantive part links to how they got to the charge.

12:35

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

because I also didn't get that opportunity for that to be explained as to what also do they mean when it says there's a part about failure to provide a timeless response to the parents inquiry resulted in avoidable distress the family and caused reputational damage to the network.

13:05

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

more on the reputational damage. So I just needed an answer and an explanation regarding that. But also, I just wanted to bring it to also to the table that when I did receive the formal complaint, yes, there was failure in acting or responding rather, responding to the email.

13:31

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

immediately however there wasn't failure to act on the matter that was that we were made aware of so as soon as

13:41

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

I was aware of what was happening. I did liars with Rebecca because she oversees the supervisors. And I followed up on ensuring there's statements that are taken. There's an ID that was done also with the staff member. Rebecca did contact the parent on the phone. And then there was a day where I was absent.

14:04

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

And then upon my return, that's when I was able to respond to the parents. And on that day, that's when I made Nicole Chofato away. Nicole wasn't in that day. She was off seek. So I forwarded the communication to Chofato. And then also...

14:25

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

I think I do understand the importance and the need to have responded to the email immediately. But I think on my defense, there is a 48-hour turnaround time in terms of responding to emails. And then secondly, there were...

14:44

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

actions that were taken or attended to that matter or that case on the ground. So it wasn't like I just decided, no, I'm going to ignore the parents, I'm not going to do anything. But there were things that were done on the ground.

15:00

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

to the matter okay so for the first one was having a conversation um with the parents when she when the parent gave us the details of what happened on site and also the information that they got from the doctor as soon as that was received we had a conversation with the coach

15:25

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

There was evidence that the child had been hurt. There was evidence that the reporting from the supervisor was not when the incident happened. It was a gap of 40 minutes. So they had an investigative discussion with the supervisor. And then there were also statements taken from the other supervisors that witnessed what had taken place. There were also conversations with the scholars.

15:52

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

that were witnesses to what happened or they were part of where the incident had happened to just get more clarity and details as to what happened. And then Rebecca did call the parent to basically give him an update on what we were doing on the ground. So there wasn't a response to the email, but there were certain actions that were taken to attend to the matter immediately.

16:23

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

I don't know enough about the situation to understand where this is coming from. I think the best thing I can do is to get the three of you in one room so that we can discuss and understand everybody. Because you're saying that you did what was expected, they are saying from what I'm seeing is that you didn't.

16:50

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

So, some women are missing each other. So, they are saying here, I did not respond to the parents' email immediately. And I did not report to Chokfat and Mikko immediately. So, what they are saying is, when did you become aware of the matter? On the 17th, when the parent sent us the email.

17:21

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

And so when did you inform Nicole and Zegovato? So I got the email on... Can I just go back? So you said you were informed by the parent on the 17th, right? When did you inform Nicole and Zegovato? I think I was absent on the 18th and then I informed them the following Monday. So why didn't you inform them on the 17th?

17:47

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

So the reason why I didn't inform them on the 17 is because we were still gathering statements. We were still doing the IDs and all of that. So I didn't have the full... The scholar's safety incident and the scholar got injured, right? So what they are saying is...

18:02

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Even if you are gathering all of that and you're doing the ideas and you're getting all the information, your responsibility is to alert, hey, because it's something that's happened, I'm still getting all the information, but just so that you are aware. That can be on top of it. Now you are absent the next day, which means nobody knows, there's no continuation, no one can follow up. That's real.

18:27

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

So that's what they're charging you with from my understanding from what I'm reading and what you're saying to me. They're saying, you are aware of this on the 17th. And you let us know that even if you were absent on the 18th or whenever it was, right? We would have known and we would have been able to address the parent. Now, you are absent, nothing's happening on the day you're absent. And no one is calling up and we don't know. The parent is feeling whatever. And that's where the reputational damage and the distress for the family could have been avoided.

18:57

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Someone else could have followed up in your absence, but you just left it. But then, I'm saying Rebecca did follow up in my absence, but it wasn't on an email, it was via a phone call. Yeah, but you needed to have escalated that so that a leader could follow up. Right? But you didn't. I don't know. Am I understanding what you're saying? And I'm thinking the way that I think they are thinking. That's what we're charging. But again...

19:30

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Not understanding when you've gone wrong in this, I think that's quite important. Because one cannot correct the behavior if you don't understand when you went wrong. So I do understand the part that you're explaining to say, as soon as I was aware of the parents' formal complaint, and I also express that with them, that I understand now that I should have, instead of me collecting all of this information, I should have just made them aware immediately.

20:00

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

so that's the part that i do understand okay and i i'm owning up to that part okay so what they're saying here is that you fail to let them know what resulted is that the parents were understandably quite distressed

20:23

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

From what I understood was that Rebecca had not responded to the parents' email because she translated that to you because she wasn't sure how to respond. Yes, so we both didn't respond to the email until I came back the following Monday. So that's the problem. Yes, yes. That in addition to this is where this now became an issue. Because had you...

20:51

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

escalated it or had you told Nicole or Seville, then one of them could have responded to the email the following day. But now you've gone a whole day and then a whole weekend and the parents hearing anything and they've written an email, they've expected a response. The reputational damage comes in. I understand the distress to the family and then reputational damage to the network.

21:21

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

I think I need more understanding on that one. So as soon as one parent is upset, they're reputational damage because one parent will speak to others. That becomes the reputational damage because what it's... And I didn't read parents' statements or I haven't had any engagement with the parents. I don't know. I'm just... I'm guessing I didn't know. So my guess would be that as a parent, they would...

21:50

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

We would lose some credibility with that parent because that parent would obviously be upset, right? And feel like the speaker doesn't care. Understandably. What then used to happen is, and I don't know who then engaged with the parent thereafter, we have to do damage control so that the parent doesn't feel that we are, which means that they must put in more effort, more work, more communication with the parent to ensure that the parent feels that we do.

22:26

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

I understand. I think with that part about substantive, I just wanted to give...

22:56

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Another perspective to say there were actions that we did demonstrate to engage with the matter rather than, you know, saying that we failed to perform duties or we disregarded our responsibilities fully. The part I do understand in terms of responding, you know, to the email, 100% agree. They're not saying that you failed your duties fully. They're just saying you're failing provider.

23:25

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

avoidable to stress so what they're saying is you should have contacted Nicole or Segel and then in addition you're failing to provide that that timeless response or enable someone else to provide a timeless response resulted in stress to the parent and emotional damage

23:50

S… Speaker 2 (20260430_143656 (1))

Yeah, I think I understood it, the reputational damage. I understood it differently. I think you'll see also in my appeal document because I thought it was saying that, you know, there has been external exhalation or the company was maybe the parent had made a comment on, I don't know, on a public platform. So that's how I understood it. But how you're explaining it makes more sense. And I'm open to them also just, you know, giving more clarity as well as to where they were coming from.

24:21

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Okay. I'll have a conversation with Kulani. I think he is in the office. And I'll speak to Nicole as well. Just to set time. We will try to find some time next week so that we can then just clarify that with him. Okay. Thank you. I think that's it. So that's all. So let me set that up for next week.

24:50

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Yeah, and then I'll get back to you later. Let me just speak to the two of them and ask them for the availability and then I'll get back from today's talk.

25:01

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I enjoy your long weekend. You too. Thank you. Long weekend was earlier than mine. Is it? Your kids are gone. I realize it's the same if you're working as a leader. Because even after they've gone, they still work together. Yes. Thank you. You too. Bye.

27:32

S… Speaker 1 (20260430_143656 (1))

you

20260430_143656 (1)

Հոդված

Հարցրեք AI-ին այս տեքստի մասին