Labour - the party of the worker - think again !!!

[Don't get me started]

And the laughable thing is a lot of the Tory supporters on here call Brown and his cronies "Lefties", they couldn't be further from the truth!

They aren't lefties, never have been they are faux tories, just shit at it thats all

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Just work for Royal Mail, it's like stepping back 30 years.
But even then our full-time jobs have been scarificed, by the union, for overtime.
Now if anyone can explain that to me, feel free.

I work for Royal Mail too, can you explain to me how it is the union that has sacrificed full time jobs for overtime?
Surely only Royal Mail can do that?

 

[glasfryn]

Does anyone still think that Labour are the party for the worker?

New Labour = watered down tories

 

[Dandyman]

The three step procedure was never:- verbal warning / written warning / dismissal.

It was:- written letter of invitation to attend a meeting / the meeting / right to a fair appeal.

Many companies have disciplinary procedures that allow for bollockings to be followed by written warnings, with dismissal as an outcome only in the event of repeat offending or gross misconduct. All employers should have written disciplinary procedures that have to be followed. The change in the law hasn't abolished existing disciplinary procedures - although employers can change procedures if they go through due process to do so.

Failure to follow established internal procedures will never help an employer at a Tribunal. The question I would ask Westdene Seagull is:- what is the employer's written disciplinary procedure in the case that you are involved in?

Is the right answer. An employer can get rid of the lazy and ill-disciplined but it requires a proper process. Failure to follow the process, as Lord B rightly says, could result in an adverse ET judgement regardless of the "guilt" of the employee.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Is the right answer. An employer can get rid of the lazy and ill-disciplined but it requires a proper process. Failure to follow the process, as Lord B rightly says, could result in an adverse ET judgement regardless of the "guilt" of the employee.

good old H/R DEPTS WHERE WOULD WE BE WITHOUT THEM

 

[Lord Bracknell]

good old H/R DEPTS WHERE WOULD WE BE WITHOUT THEM

It's the pisspoor new H/R Departments that people should be worried about.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is the right answer. An employer can get rid of the lazy and ill-disciplined but it requires a proper process. Failure to follow the process, as Lord B rightly says, could result in an adverse ET judgement regardless of the "guilt" of the employee.

I know of an organisation that - years ago - sacked an employee for hitting a disabled child. The employee went to a Tribunal and got compensation for wrongful dismissal, because he hadn't been given access to a fair appeal process. The dismissal was eventually held to be "fair" - but it was still "wrongful".

 

[Billy the Fish]

It's the pisspoor new H/R Departments that people should be worried about.

Usually women on a power trip.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The three step procedure was never:- verbal warning / written warning / dismissal.

It was:- written letter of invitation to attend a meeting / the meeting / right to a fair appeal.

Many companies have disciplinary procedures that allow for bollockings to be followed by written warnings, with dismissal as an outcome only in the event of repeat offending or gross misconduct. All employers should have written disciplinary procedures that have to be followed. The change in the law hasn't abolished existing disciplinary procedures - although employers can change procedures if they go through due process to do so.

Failure to follow established internal procedures will never help an employer at a Tribunal. The question I would ask Westdene Seagull is:- what is the employer's written disciplinary procedure in the case that you are involved in?

Agreed "Verbal Warning" was less of a stage and more of a recommended punishment for minor cases. It was clearly listed as a possibility on the directgov.uk website ( and you can still see the pre-April 2009 recommendations on it ).

The verbal warning doesn't even get a mention in the new ACAS backed recommendations.

The employers written procedure was rapidly changed as of April to remove the previous option of verbal warning. Managers at the company in question now have no choice but to go to written warning if it is found that the employee needs a warning of some type - harsh in my book, especially for performance issues.

With regard to Westdene Seagull, whilst I appreciate you cannot pass comment whilst proceedings are in place, it would be interesting to hear whether you think the disciplinary proceedings are in fact warranted. That is, did the employee do something wrong?

Need to be a bit careful here but - basically the manager of the employee and the Senior Management Team believe there is a performance issue. Despite the fact that none of them seem capable of doing their own jobs correctly they would appear to want to lump the blame of all the companys recent failures on this low end manager who isn't actually paid very much.

There are some minor issues but nothing to the level that is being suggested. The managers union got involved as well and pointed out they hadn't folowed their own procedures and nor where their procedures fair. Result ? The company rejected the unions claims of not following their own procedures and very quickly changed them. Personally I think the manager at most deserved a verbal warning - instead a lengthy written warning was issued. An appeal proved fruitless as quite frankly the SMT couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery.

If the manager had been one of my team I would have just dealt with it with tighter management but in this case all managers washed their hands of any responsibility they had and hung this employee out to dry ( and they had all f***ed up - I'd give the details but I would immediately be identifable if anyone of them was reading this and that would identify that employee ). Be assured, if that employee leaves said company I'll be very quick to ensure everyone on NSC knows about their skeletons in the cupboard !!!!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Just work for Royal Mail, it's like stepping back 30 years.
But even then our full-time jobs have been scarificed, by the union, for overtime.
Now if anyone can explain that to me, feel free.

Royal Mail want to casualise postal sorting and delivery which means that full time posts will disappear and these will only be replaced by part time working. Its better from a union point of view to allow their members to do overtime to make the hours up to what they previously used to do than not have any overtime at all. If Royal Mail wanted to be arsey over staffing levels the overtime wont be there , it will be done by agency staff with zero hour contracts.

 

[strings]

Westdene seagull - it sound to me that if the employee decided to leave and could prove what you said above, they would have a strong case for constructive dismissal - something that can be very expensive!

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Usually women on a power trip.

yes ,ive had a few experiences

 

[RexCathedra]

Does anyone still think Labour are the party for the worker?

These fellows do. With graphs.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

W.S ...

The fact that the company's formal disciplinary procedures now appear to start at the written warning stage doesn't meant that basic management issues can't be dealt with through "normal management action" (or "a conversation", as it is often known by those who understand these things).

If an employee can demonstrate that such normal processes of management support were missing, it is highly likely that a Tribunal would be minded to attribute a significant level of responsibility (or "blame" as it used to be known) on the company for any dismissal (actual or constructive).

I think the Senior Management Team doesn't understand that it is skating on rather thin ice.