P
Phil Waters
Guest
I get free broadband, line rental and calls. Can we meet halfway on this?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
Free travel between Manchester and Birmingham maybe?
P
Phil Waters
Guest
I'm not sure that's halfway. I'm in Scotland.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
If i worked on the train rather than at the station every forumite could get on one of my trains for free. They`d just have to quote one of my many hilarious posts to prove they were a member.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
That is one of my favourite quotes of yours.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Getting back to the subject of this thread.
The meeting was "an absence meeting" to simply review her absences. The manager chairing the meeting explained that the benchmark had been breached. The validity of the absences were not doubted. It was stated that anyone who breached the benchmark would be treated the same way. It was at this point the woman (who is 19 by the way) advised that she had never heard of the benchmark. It was not worded in any document. Her informal absence warning letter stated that she had received the warning due to a breach of the benchmark "as stated in the Sickness and Absence Policy" - but this is not strictly true as there is no mention of this benchmark.
Strange.
The meeting was "an absence meeting" to simply review her absences. The manager chairing the meeting explained that the benchmark had been breached. The validity of the absences were not doubted. It was stated that anyone who breached the benchmark would be treated the same way. It was at this point the woman (who is 19 by the way) advised that she had never heard of the benchmark. It was not worded in any document. Her informal absence warning letter stated that she had received the warning due to a breach of the benchmark "as stated in the Sickness and Absence Policy" - but this is not strictly true as there is no mention of this benchmark.
Strange.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Also, she received an informal written warning due to "exceeding the company benchmark of three absences in a rolling 12 month period." She received the informal warning which will remain on her file for 6 months. Any further absences will result in another hearing. The hearing looked at all the evidence and she was given a decision after a 15 minute discussion. I was there to take minutes of the meeting and I did discuss the possibilities. I also picked up on her point about the whereabouts in written format of this benchmark and was told it does exist. No idea where though.
What I don't want to do is create enemies and be seen to be causing trouble. The woman isn't too bothered about the informal. She's too young to understand all this. I am so concerned because it appears shocking that a decision would be made based on a policy that, so far, has not been produced in writing at any meeting I have ever attended.
What I don't want to do is create enemies and be seen to be causing trouble. The woman isn't too bothered about the informal. She's too young to understand all this. I am so concerned because it appears shocking that a decision would be made based on a policy that, so far, has not been produced in writing at any meeting I have ever attended.
Phil, I would say it is a 6 inch nailed on bet that she will be late before the six months is up. At this point, she will be "officially" warned, and can then contest the warning on the grounds that the benchmark does not exist in writing. It is surely only a case of time.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
The problem is, everyone I have asked claims it does exist. Nobody has been, so far, able to show me that.
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
If the company hasn't written this anywhere in the document and there is no precedent previously set surely she has no case to answer?
FWIW she's probably too young to care all that much given the high turnover of jobs amongst young people (short of being fired that is). Agree that it will need challenging, looks to me as if you're company are implementing a new policy and trying to enforce it on someone who doesn't really care all that much and as you say Phil is too young to understand it, just so they can bring it up when it happens to someone else (probably older than the woman in question in this case).
FWIW she's probably too young to care all that much given the high turnover of jobs amongst young people (short of being fired that is). Agree that it will need challenging, looks to me as if you're company are implementing a new policy and trying to enforce it on someone who doesn't really care all that much and as you say Phil is too young to understand it, just so they can bring it up when it happens to someone else (probably older than the woman in question in this case).
A
Ardross
Guest
Any policy written or unwritten that disciplines in any form an employee for three genuine sickness absences is plainly unfair in any event. Being genuinely sick and off is not and cannot be misconduct.
It is obviously unfair to discipline a person for misconduct if they have not been informed or have no means of finding out that it is misconduct - consider what some might think an extreme example of this - the case of the employee found to be unfairly summarily dismissed for smoking when he admitted he thought he might get sacked for it but the employer's disciplinary procedure did not provide that it was gross misconduct.
Moreover, this three absences even if genuine and a warning policy is discriminatory under the DDA as it is more likely to impact on people with disabilities.
It is obviously unfair to discipline a person for misconduct if they have not been informed or have no means of finding out that it is misconduct - consider what some might think an extreme example of this - the case of the employee found to be unfairly summarily dismissed for smoking when he admitted he thought he might get sacked for it but the employer's disciplinary procedure did not provide that it was gross misconduct.
Moreover, this three absences even if genuine and a warning policy is discriminatory under the DDA as it is more likely to impact on people with disabilities.
Grand Armee
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 635
That is what I was about to say here.
I don't know how the European Union works with industrial relations, or whether you have an Industrial Relations Commission in Greater Europe. But such a policy would be illegal under Australian law, and the employer has the potential to be fined, sued, and worst publicly named and shamed for their wrong doing.
The laws here state a person is entitled to a minimum of 10 days sick leave (we have 12 days at my company), 3 days bereavement, and 2 days of carers leave.
Sick days in my company accrue going into the new year. Entitlements - if we are off one day, we do not need to supply any form of medical certificate. However if for more than 2 days, we need to have a medical certificate stating the genuine reason for absence. Fair enough. I usually get a medical certificate for just one day off, to prove I have nothing to hide.
Funnily enough my best friend recently won a matter over her former employer. My best friend has Crohn's Disease, a complication of the bowel and intestine, which flares up often. She told her employer that she needed a day off due to her medical condition, as she needed to be treated at a nuclear medicine place, which did not open on the weekends, to see if she could digest her food (which she can't anymore, which they found out on her test at the nuclear medicine place
). It was very serious, and she needed to be in hospital the next day. When she came back to work the next day her employer gave her a warning, because he didn't believe it was a "genuine" reason for a day off, despite a medical certificate from her Specialist. She took the matter straight to industrial relations, easily won. And the employer was forced to pay a fine of significant value. of course she walked out on that company.As for company procedures, there is another law down here. All company policies and procedures for HR and OH&S are to be both in hard and soft form. At my company the hard form must be kept visible on the desk, for reference. They are updated quarterly. I;d refer to it at least once a week.
I am surprised you don't have a hard copy on your desk.
simmo
Senior Jockey
I have seen written evidence of the procedure which Phil speaks of. Presumably they lost all of the bits of paper on which it was written when they moved to Bellshill. 
In fact, I was once forced to give an "associate" an informal warning because the death of her mother (and her subsequent absence) took her over the "3 absences in a rolling 12 month period or 15 cumulative days" limit.
Needless to say, she wasn't happy about it.
PS Phil, I was delighted to see several of your colleagues in Edinburgh the other day. I suspect that some of them were less delighted to see me.....
In fact, I was once forced to give an "associate" an informal warning because the death of her mother (and her subsequent absence) took her over the "3 absences in a rolling 12 month period or 15 cumulative days" limit.
Needless to say, she wasn't happy about it.
PS Phil, I was delighted to see several of your colleagues in Edinburgh the other day. I suspect that some of them were less delighted to see me.....
A
Ardross
Guest
An informal warning will almost certainly count as a detriment for the purposes of the discrimination legislation.
We have a policy of "Job Abandonment" where an employee can be dismissed after 3 days of absence with no contact. They are obviously allowed to come back if there is a medical reason with documentation but it is a good way of getting useless people off the payroll
Blimey! And to think of the endless warnings procedures we had to go through (using an American system) in the Saudi Oil Co. Verbal warning, followed by written if no improvement, then a month to improve behaviour or performance. Then the same thing again for a second infraction. Then a third one, after which the employee COULD be fired, but had the right to a hearing, where s/he could be reinstated! By the time you'd got that far, you were more likely to want to leave!
A
Ardross
Guest
K we now have statutory dispute resolution procedures under the Employment Act 2002- if you get those wrong automatic unfair dismissal can follow
There's a lot that doesn't sound right here Phil. Now I don't know NTL's policy and procedures and can only really relate to our own, 99% of which will conform with the law, but occasionally something slips through due to lapses in updating etc
She appears to have been given an "informal written" ?
I've never heard of such a level. Now I've heard of "informal verbal" (often called stage 1) and it's not unusal for this to be confirmed in writing later, with the stipulation that the confirmation doesn't amount to a formal warning, but rather that stage 1 has been observed etc (My God I used to have a desk full of them). Anything written is normally considered as formal, and thus a stage 2 or something called "written" or "1st written". It's possible that they might have taken her to stage 2 without having observed stage 1? In which case, they might look to invoke a stage 3 upon the next incidence, which could be "second written" or "final written".
If this is the case then they've turned an absence investigation meeting into a disciplinary hearing. In other words they could well have used an inappropriate procedure to effect an outcome. This can normally be successfully challenged through the grievance procedure. Any policy and procedure is only as good as the individual manager implementing it, and similarly, the level of theoretical protection, is only as strong as those who are prepared to invoke and fight back. I've had a few disciplinary actions wiped out in the past, when managers had sought to use the employee appraisal and review scheme to effect a disciplinary hearing/ action for instance. Put simply it isn't designed for that purpose and isn't to be used for that purpose. Any action resulting from it therefore, can be 'thrown out' (and its not unusual for the manager concerned to receive a minor rebuke and a bit of training in the process too). That they've sought to move a disciplinary action out of an absence investigation meeting strikes me as falling under this category. The normal procedure is to hold the investigation, and notify within 10 days the employee regarding the outcome, and then tell them of the intention to hold a disciplinary hearing etc
Anyone under investigation for a disciplinable offence (outside of gross mis-conduct where the action might reasonably be deemed to be immediate - e.g. smacking someone etc) has to be notified of the nature of the investigation, the policy/ procedure which is being invoked, and an offer made to them regarding the right to representation in any hearing. The representative doesn't have to be Trade Union steward, it can be a colleague, a lay person, ar solicitor, whowever, but I'm pretty certain this is a requirement of the DDA. Failure to do this, should have put them in breach of quite a few pieces of European/ UK legislation.
She needs to log all these instances of apparent failure to observe due process. I personally would challenge it through the grievance procedure for failure to observe due process, but it doesn't sound as if she's up for it, and might not necessarily appreciate the gravity of what should be facing. There is another danger about pushing other people into a conflict situation as proxys to settle wider personal agendas, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't seen instances where I felt a Trade Unionist wasn't guilty of doing just that to an otherwise reluctant member. It's a little bit naughty, and not always a good idea, as the individual also has a habit of withdrawing as the heat gets turned up later too. On the other side though, sometimes you have to push someone a bit, because your greater experience knows what the implications of them failing to act early are likely to be. It's frequently a difficult call to make.
There is another possibility however unique to yourselves that might be worth seeking to exploit?
I'm guessing a bit, and don't know the operational details etc but I'm assuming you're due to fall under the Virgin banner shortly? Any Virgin staff will probably transfer under the protection of TUPE with better terms and conditions than NTL staff. Similarly, any Virgin managers are likely to be trained to higher standard. now if I were looking to strike back, I'd pick a time which was as most inconvenient for the manager concerned as possible. There's got to be fair chance that NTL middle management coudl be feeling a tad nervous? you might be able to observe this in them when they start having to operate with their Virgin equivilants, as a degree of sizing each other up is inevitable. I'd have thought there's a fair chance that the Virgins will be in the superior position, and if I were on the NTL side, I wouldn't want atention being drawn on to me for an apparent failure etc Most tellingly perhaps though, is the change of management arrangements presents all sides with a 'get out' route should they wish to revoke any recent decisions, or terminate actions pending.
Lets us know how you get on please, and how she is etc and I hope you feel able to come back for any help/ steer, as things like this need to be kept on top of regardless of any histories on this board
Good luck
She appears to have been given an "informal written" ?
I've never heard of such a level. Now I've heard of "informal verbal" (often called stage 1) and it's not unusal for this to be confirmed in writing later, with the stipulation that the confirmation doesn't amount to a formal warning, but rather that stage 1 has been observed etc (My God I used to have a desk full of them). Anything written is normally considered as formal, and thus a stage 2 or something called "written" or "1st written". It's possible that they might have taken her to stage 2 without having observed stage 1? In which case, they might look to invoke a stage 3 upon the next incidence, which could be "second written" or "final written".
If this is the case then they've turned an absence investigation meeting into a disciplinary hearing. In other words they could well have used an inappropriate procedure to effect an outcome. This can normally be successfully challenged through the grievance procedure. Any policy and procedure is only as good as the individual manager implementing it, and similarly, the level of theoretical protection, is only as strong as those who are prepared to invoke and fight back. I've had a few disciplinary actions wiped out in the past, when managers had sought to use the employee appraisal and review scheme to effect a disciplinary hearing/ action for instance. Put simply it isn't designed for that purpose and isn't to be used for that purpose. Any action resulting from it therefore, can be 'thrown out' (and its not unusual for the manager concerned to receive a minor rebuke and a bit of training in the process too). That they've sought to move a disciplinary action out of an absence investigation meeting strikes me as falling under this category. The normal procedure is to hold the investigation, and notify within 10 days the employee regarding the outcome, and then tell them of the intention to hold a disciplinary hearing etc
Anyone under investigation for a disciplinable offence (outside of gross mis-conduct where the action might reasonably be deemed to be immediate - e.g. smacking someone etc) has to be notified of the nature of the investigation, the policy/ procedure which is being invoked, and an offer made to them regarding the right to representation in any hearing. The representative doesn't have to be Trade Union steward, it can be a colleague, a lay person, ar solicitor, whowever, but I'm pretty certain this is a requirement of the DDA. Failure to do this, should have put them in breach of quite a few pieces of European/ UK legislation.
She needs to log all these instances of apparent failure to observe due process. I personally would challenge it through the grievance procedure for failure to observe due process, but it doesn't sound as if she's up for it, and might not necessarily appreciate the gravity of what should be facing. There is another danger about pushing other people into a conflict situation as proxys to settle wider personal agendas, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't seen instances where I felt a Trade Unionist wasn't guilty of doing just that to an otherwise reluctant member. It's a little bit naughty, and not always a good idea, as the individual also has a habit of withdrawing as the heat gets turned up later too. On the other side though, sometimes you have to push someone a bit, because your greater experience knows what the implications of them failing to act early are likely to be. It's frequently a difficult call to make.
There is another possibility however unique to yourselves that might be worth seeking to exploit?
I'm guessing a bit, and don't know the operational details etc but I'm assuming you're due to fall under the Virgin banner shortly? Any Virgin staff will probably transfer under the protection of TUPE with better terms and conditions than NTL staff. Similarly, any Virgin managers are likely to be trained to higher standard. now if I were looking to strike back, I'd pick a time which was as most inconvenient for the manager concerned as possible. There's got to be fair chance that NTL middle management coudl be feeling a tad nervous? you might be able to observe this in them when they start having to operate with their Virgin equivilants, as a degree of sizing each other up is inevitable. I'd have thought there's a fair chance that the Virgins will be in the superior position, and if I were on the NTL side, I wouldn't want atention being drawn on to me for an apparent failure etc Most tellingly perhaps though, is the change of management arrangements presents all sides with a 'get out' route should they wish to revoke any recent decisions, or terminate actions pending.
Lets us know how you get on please, and how she is etc and I hope you feel able to come back for any help/ steer, as things like this need to be kept on top of regardless of any histories on this board
Good luck
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Simmo
What was your role at ntl? Where is the benchmark for absences documentation?
What was your role at ntl? Where is the benchmark for absences documentation?
simmo
Senior Jockey
At the time in question, I was a Team Leader. I have no idea where they keep that documentation now - (again, at that time), a hard copy was passed out to all associates who were required to sign for it. I have no doubt that if push comes to shove, they'll be able to produce one, although if I was searching for it I would adopt an "I want it so that no one can try to pull the wool over my eyes" stance, in order to allow a bit more freedom of movement.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Things have changed a great deal since you left I imagine, simmo.
You probably think things could not get worse, but they have.
You probably think things could not get worse, but they have.
simmo
Senior Jockey
I'm still in touch with a few people there and I haven't heard anything that makes me regret my decision to **** off somewhere else instead.
As Warbler mentioned earlier, it will be most amusing to watch certain people trying to make the adjustment to the "Virgin" way, which, I must admit has been presented in a very compelling way. I almost started to believe that it would actually happen!
As Warbler mentioned earlier, it will be most amusing to watch certain people trying to make the adjustment to the "Virgin" way, which, I must admit has been presented in a very compelling way. I almost started to believe that it would actually happen!
P
Phil Waters
Guest
When did you leave?
simmo
Senior Jockey
Two years ago. Recently returned (in a manner of speaking) as a contractor.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Elaborate or I'll set clive on you.