MB - you couldn't have summed up her problem better. Wish I could have said it like that the many times I've tried to explain what happened to people today. Mind if I borrow your words ??
Thanks for all the help/advice thus far everyone.
|
volvoman - by all means borrow "my" words.
I recently heard of a case of a "Thai" origin woman, married to an Englishman, who had problems at work - simply because the way she raised her eyebrows, when trying to understand a question, led to her being accused of trying to look too clever!
Just thank your lucky stars that this forum is "run" by HJ/Mark(RLBS) both of whom are married to so called "foreigners". Anywhere else, and you might have got no sympathy and given the cold shoulder. Best of luck.
|
V M.
I've kept out of this one so far as I really have nothing constructive to offer.
Just a note to wish you and your good lady all the best in this one. FWIW I hope the employer in question gets a rough ride.
No Dosh
|
I haven\'t got anything constructive to offer either but the fact that I noticed nobody had/or was offered the service of bag packing in [the supermarket I visited] last night suggests there is much more to this than meets the eye.
Either the supermarket want to see the back of VM\'s missus for reasons unknown and have made up a trumped up \'charge\' to remove her or the \'offence\' was far worse than failing to offer to pack a bag.
There\'s missing information here and I can\'t wait to find out what it is.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Toad the company is not the one you mentioned and I don't think any names here are a good idea.
Apparently it is my wife's employers' policy for all bags to be packed but she didn't know this and hasn't ever received any proper customer service training.
The allegations are poor customer service and possible racist motives on the part of my wife because the customer concerned was of a different ethnic origin.
We believe there are other issues involved here but I can't say what here.
Thanks everyone for all the help/support. Esp. Hugo. Will keep you informed.
|
Toad the company is not the one you mentioned and I don't think any names here are a good idea.
I agree, no names. But policy or not this is such an extreme reaction a failure to bag pack seems unlikely to be the sole cause.
The allegations are poor customer service and possible racist motives on the part of my wife
If there really was a racist element I guess that would explain the over the top reaction. Even so is it really likely that Mrs. VolvoMan would behave in such a way?
Good luck!
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Your point is well taken Toad, but please don't use company names within this thread.
Thank you.
|
|
|
volvoman,
I can't really add anything to the excellent and informative advice that has already been given by other members of the Back Room.
The only comment that I can make is, from my own personal experience, when I have been shopping in various big name supermakets, is that it is certainly NOT regular practice to pack customers bags for them. The only time I can ever remember this being done for me was when a stores computer and till system went down and we were all left standing at the check-outs for half an hour. They put extra staff at these points to clear the backlog.
Good luck, I do hope that the situation can be resolved satisfactorily for your wife with the company concerned.
|
I'm off to the supermarket now. The one I go to has excellent staff, friendly, helpful, honest, even the ones who don't speak English very well are obviously well trained in customer service. Even so, I doubt very much that I'm going to get my bag packed - nor do I need to, because I'll get out of there quicker if I pack it myself and the checkout operator scans things on the till.
Sorry that I can't offer more help on the employment law issues but as I understand it a contract of employment is a legal requirement, it sounds to me as though the racist motive is on the part of your wife's employer, and you can't fire someone for not doing a job they haven't been trained for. At most, this sounds like a verbal warning incident to me, unless that stage has already been passed.
|
Mark - I can't access the old 'temporary' thread so am starting a new 'temporary' thread. I promise to keep it brief and keep it clean. Thanks.
BTW Hugo's been great and I've a couple of suggestions for the BackRoom but you'll all have to wait until I get my head back together.
|
Well folks - Mrs V went to her meeting today with a statement explaining her actions and asking to be given copies of everything and written details of the procedures she was being subjected to. She told themthe questions were difficult to answer and it was all very stressful and that she wanted to read her statement but they refused to let her and started bombarding her with more questions. Eventually she was allowed to read the statement and the mood changed a little.
Suddenly she was told she could have copies of everything and these were given to her at the end of the meeting. She was asked why she hadn't requested these before but how on earth could she be expected to know what she was entitled to ask for until she had read what she was entitled to be given but hadn't been (chicken & egg) ?
Anyway she toook away the paperwork and we've now had chance to look at it. To say it's amateurish is being generous. Hand written, illegible in places, no page numbers, incorrect/no punctuation etc. etc.
We then found a number of inaccuracies and statements attributed to my wife which she denies. We have prepared another statement for the final meeting tomorrow when she will know her fate. She has been signed off by our GP with acute stress and will attend the meeting only to present the statement and get the decision. She doesn't feel able to deal with more interrogation. She has refuted the allegations of racist remarks and pointed out how badly she has been treated. She has stated she feels discriminated against by the company and their procedures which have precluded her from defending herself properly. She has highlighted the total lack of support, training and welfare as well as flawed procedures. She has also taken the opportunity to hint at ulterior motives by mentioning previous unacceptable behaviour on the part of 2 key staff involved in the proceedings. She has confirmed she will appeal against any decision she disagrees with.
Should be lively tomorrow
so I hope you can all tune in for the next installment.
|
VM,
i am following this with interest since I find it incredible that what I assumed to be a large firm (am I wrong in assuming this?) should have such a haphazard, informal and as you say amateurish disciplinary procedure. I work for a relatively small establishment (50 ish employees) yet we all have copies of a formal written disciplinary (and complaints)procedure which gives very precise directions to employer and employees with regard to how it is carried out. It was agreed between 'ees and 'ers after consultation with our Unions/associations. surely your wife's firm should have one and she should be aware of it before ANY hearings take place unless gross misconduct is involved - or do I have an enlightened and reasonable employer? I hadn't realised until now!
good luck
|
Just brought Mrs V. home.
She gave her second statement and stuck to her guns. They tried to question her more but she refused to comment. The mood changed a bit after they'd read it and we think a few feathers were ruffled. Suddenly they seemed more understanding (can't think why !) and conciliatory.
They agreed she'd never been racist but cited her poor customer service. Noted mitigating factors but skirted round the issues re. lack of contract, flawed procedures etc. (probably wanted her to forget about all that but they've got a shock coming !). In the end they gave her a final written warning for poor service and said they'd give her more training.
They said they'd send their decision in writing and she'd be able to appeal (not half !!).
She's inclided to appeal and invoke the grievance procedures but we'll take advice before doing so.
For reasons I can't go into this has been a particular ordeal for her and I'm so proud !
She stuck to her guns and came through pretty much on her own ! I've told her this is the best training she'll ever get from that company and to learn from it. I hope it will give her more self confidence but not so much that she dumps me for some bronzed flashy geezer in a tight suit !
Anyway we're going to enjoy the moment for now and reflect on just how uncomfortable life is right now for those involved in all of this.
Will keep you all informed as things happen and thanks for being there all !!
Note from Mrs V.
thank you all so much for your help and support. It has been really hard for me to do this! Now I know why Mr. V spends so much time here! I promis I will not swap him for anyone!x
|
Mr V, I am sorry Mrs V is being put thru all this in this day and age, from the accounts of proceedings so far as described by you and as an HR pro of many years I am very surprised your lady appears to have sat through the hearing you describe alone and without a witness of her/your choice present.
Am I right?
|
Hi Growler. My wife had to have a staff memeber with her. She chose the only person she felt she could trust - her young colleague at the next till when it happened. When we realised how badly it was being handled I asked if I could be present at the next meeting to 'translate' both ways and they said no. Might have been better for them if they'd said yes !
Thanks for your support!
|
Interesting point from The Growler...
Does UK Law give anybody in Mrs V's situation the right to have a witness/assistant present?
I know in the old days (80s) another member of staff was allowed to be there to assist/make sure everything went smoothly.
I know here, you have the right to anybody - lawyer/wife/cousin/father/priest etc to be around if you choose so.
|
Well I've wrestled with a good many countries' labour laws and my understanding was that any employee subject to a grievance or disciplinary hearing had the right to have a person of their choice present. Of course a peer may help but he/she is likely to be intimidated or nervous for very obvious reasons and thus not a lot of help.
I am not going to be so presumptuous as to give advice in this situation but let me just say if it was my wife in the same position as yours I would have had my legal representative present, having engaged him at the very outset of this affair and would have refused to cooperate until the management agreed. Looking over the story so far, albeit going only on what has been posted, this appears to me to be a disgraceful episode.
This employer needs to be taught how to run a human resources policy by the sound of it and I hope you win. I'm sure you will.
|
You're right Growler but we only really found out how amateurish and pathetic it all was on Wednesday when we got the notes from the meetings and copies from the staff manual my wife had never seen before.
I suspected it was a joke on Monday and got some legal advice but was told we had no right to have anyone external present. If they lied to us about that also the prospects for them look even bleaker than it does from my lounge windows through which I can see grey, grey skies and more falling snow !
Take care.
|
Volvoman,
Unfortunately your post is ambiguous:
"got some legal advice but was told we had no right to have anyone external present."
Who told you? Legal advisor or the company?
I'd look at the legal side of this...
Were the company's actions in contravention of recognised labour and employment law?
|
|
Both Ian. The advisor said the company's internal policies were paramount at that stage and the company said the same when they refused my offer to assist.
|
|
ps. only exception was for minors under 18 who could have a parent/ guardian present.
|
Volvoman I'm sorry, this makes me angry. "No right"! to have anyone external present? Who are these people?
|
Volvoman I'm sorry, this makes me angry. "No right"! to have anyone external present? Who are these people?
Nameless, faceless and above all, clueless from what I've seen so far.
Not only do we have somewhat twisted views of what consitutes customer service in this country, we also seem to have no grasp of how to valuing hard-working employees. As for actually training staff, don't get me started....
No Dosh ** Quick, talk motoring, Mark's coming! **
|
>>Nameless, faceless and above all, clueless from what I've seen so far.
Agreed No Dosh. What can I add?
This thread is, uniquely, a bit of a tear jerker. I haven't wept like this since that poor couple chose the Land Rover on Tuesday. :-)
Volvoman, may I wish you both all the best in your battle against the corporate ineptitude, rampant spite and vile intolerance on display.
I am sure many have read the story and been moved without posting and they, like me, are awaiting a final verdict on whether justice prevails.
The best of luck.
|
Volvoman, like many others here I wish Mrs V all the best.
Unfortunately this type of tale is all too familiar in my experience, this country seems to be riddled with a great number of junior and middle managers who are largely incompetent. Sadly the likes of David Brent in 'The Office' are so common it is painful, I must admit it is the main reason that I don't find the programme that funny - it is far too close to the truth. One day we will wake up and realise that everyone is entitled to be treated fairly and with respect, whatever their position in life or society. If people are treated with lack of respect then companies should not be surprised that the employees will have a lack of respect for the company in return. I have had the experience of visiting hundreds of offices, shops and factories over the years and how some of them have still got employees is beyond me, I'm sure the dole queue would be better than many workplaces, they must just keep going on the good old fashioned work ethic demonstrated by their employees.
Cockle
|
again,
I would check whether they are operating within recognised labour-law on this one.
(Try the CAB, or local dept of labour)
It's all very well having an internal policy, but if it against the law, you can have any action struck off, AND they can do nothing about it. (double jeopardy).
Does Mrs V have the right to a translator?
I'm sure that, as well, is a right under the law.
|
Glad things seem to be getting sorted out.
Having been in a similar situation ten years ago I know how nerve-wracking it can be.
If Mrs V in the right, and that's how it sounds, stick to your guns.
Hope the ultimate outcome is satisfactory.
Brian
Still learning (I hope)
|
Well done the pair of you for turning what has no doubt been a dreadful experience into something positive. No doubt Mrs V will not be viewing her current employment as a long term prospect but this experience will be highly beneficial should a similar situation ever occur again and maybe would help to resolve such ridiculousness earlier on it it's stages. Let's keep fingers crossed that never happens though!
Someone not made of as stern disposition or not as well informed may have let the company/people concerned get away with this, putting themselves on the road to further problems and maybe even dismissal. Well done to you and her for standing up to all of this.
I promis I will not swap him for anyone!x
C'mon Volvoman, admit it, you wrote that last sentence yourself didn't you! :)
All the best to the pair of you - I am keeping a virtual bottle of champers on ice for the imminent successful outcome of this.
|
Volvoman,
I realise that you have difficulties with long threads, hence the reason I have allowed two. When you are comfortable that this matter has run its course, please let me know so that I can put them together and lock them.
No hurry, but let me know when.
Mark
|
>> Volvoman,I realise that you have difficulties with long threads...
Sounds like a very painful condition Mark ! :-)
Will let you know. Thanks again !
|
Just hope she means it Dan !
Thanks for your support.
|
In the end they gave her a final written warning for poor service and said they'd give her more training.
I'm not totally sure, but I believe they can only give a final warning after having previously given a verbal warning. I'm fairly sure you cannot go immediately to a final warning other than for serious offences.
One thing I am sure of is that you have a right to have a witness present whenever anything is being put on your file. I don't know the scope of who this can be, but I can see no reason why it cannot be someone outside the company. You also have to sign anything of this nature to say you agree with the facts it gives etc - make sure she doesn't do so.
They said they'd send their decision in writing and she'd be able to appeal (not half !!).
Again, I believe this has to be presented in front of a witness and signed by all parties.
|
"> ..... lack of contract..<"
">The employer by law has to give an employee a "statement" of employment, within 2 months of the employee starting work.
This covers what would normally be in a Contract of Employment, however this is not a contract between the employer and the employee.
If there is a dispute and the employer has not given the employee a contract, the court may use the terms in the statement to decide the terms of employment. <"
www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empq2.html
|
VMan,
can only access this discussion at night when home but still amazed at this firms incompetence and unfairness in dealing with what should be a relatively minor matter and the total lack of consideration towards an employee for what is (at worst) a matter which could be dealt with by a bit of advice and kind words. Others have said that final warnings cannot be given in this case - I think this is correct. In the first instance even if it was proved that your wife was at fault (doubtful!) she should be told of her "misdemeanor", warned as to her behaviour(!) and given by this a verbal warning but also time to "mend her ways"(!). If she continued to "misbehave" she can be given a first written warning and if she still persisted a second verbal warning, then dismissal. This all assumes she was guilty in the first place!
I think she should also have had a contract of employment laying down duties and how they are expected to be carried out within 13 weeks of employment. This should have a written disciplinary procedure unless there are fewer than 20 employees (check this but I am fairly sure)(PL714 book Dfee)
Acas publish a very useful booklet on Disciplinary Procedures in the Workplace - available to read on the website at
www.acas.org.uk/publications/h02.html
I would be interested to know whether you can find any of the recommendations that your wife's employers have fulfilled - it's quite a challenge!
Hope you are both surviving the undoubted and unwelcome stress, make them pay for their incompetence! You will win -
And just remember "They're all b**tards!"
Good luck to you both
|
"If she continued to "misbehave" she can be given a first written warning and if she still persisted a second verbal warning, then dismissal".
sorry, this should read "a second WRITTEN warning"
|
Mr & Mrs V
Can't contribute any more to all the excellent advice given so far, but
"Non illegitimae carborundum"
I think that's right.
Good luck to you both
|
V
What I don't like here is the term "final written warning". Many years since I practised in UK but my understanding is that labour law is rigorous and clear as to proper procedure. Here in our often maligned less developed country it is extremely specific on these matters.
The term "final" to me is implicit that some form of due process has been pursued up to this point. I haven't got from anything I read here this has in fact been the case.
"Due process" is a concept which has to be followed in these matters, and failure to do this alone is grounds for complaint EVEN if the employee is the guilty party. I'm not hearing it. Again I cannot help but think right is on your side and this should have been sorted out simply and equitably at the start.
I have managed situations not unlike this and I would, having first established the veracity of the complaint, and assuming it involves an employee in hitherto good standing, and it can clearly be said she was the cause of the problem, let her go with a verbal warning, perhaps a bit of retraining, and would have dealt with the customer via a mollifying letter, or a gift voucher or something. Unless the affair was seriously unpleasant or she had insulted the customer in some way, I wouldn't even put a note on file. These things happen.
If she was a habitual upsetter of customers that would be something else and I would review whether or not she was in the right position in my organisation.
If it all turned out to be a misunderstanding and nobody could really pin where the right and wrong lay, then we have an upset customer. Right, let me deal with that and put him/her to rights. Better I take ownership of the problem regardless of who's at fault than have a disgruntled customer walking around.
I can't believe a manager would make such a meal of something like this.
Yes, I'm, rabbiting on I'm sorry but I have been privileged to manage top class HR teams and I can't believe anything like this could get this far. My last employee relations manager Gigi would have sorted this whole thing out in a jiffy, with a note in my in-tray saying "boss this happened yesterday and this is what we did. Just FYI". Whether or not your wide is the offending part or not is irrelevant.
There are always three sides to every story, yours, mine and the truth as they say, it doesn't matter. This affair could have been resolved at source by first line management without much fuss and certainly no need to beat people over the head with the Personnel Manual and consume time and energy which should begoing into running the business. I used to teach my people that every disgruntled customer was a great opportunity to show good service and turn the incident into customer loyalty.
|
I agree with Growler here, I cannot see how this has reached the final warning stage given what we have been told. The final warning is always issued after whatever number of non final warnings have been issued previously.
I have just finished drafting a personnel handbook for a national company and in this case (as with all the others I have ever designed) there are a number of warnings prior to the final one. This does assume offences have been graded and linked to potential outcomes, usually minor offences = a chat, several minor offences = 1st warning, theft or murder = dismissal and so on.
I would look in this instance at the procedures you have obtained from the company, under what circumstances can a warning of this type be issued and have these been met or complied with. I suspect you will find a hole large enough to drive the proverbial through.
as ever
Mark
|
Volvoman,
I have to say that I have to agree with both THe Growler and Mark on this.
How on earth can you be given a "Final Written Warning" if you've never been given any form of warning before? Where I work they would have to give you (as stated in the staff handbook) several written warnings before a final one, but, even before this, several verbal warnings, the first few, no doubt, in practice, would not even be recorded.
Sounds to me as if this company are making it up as they go along! They don't seem to have any written down conditions of service, or, if they do, nobody there seems to have copies of them.
|
I've kept away from this thread deliberately for a number of reasons; this is despite years of experience of disciplinary procedures in various employment situations. This includes presiding on appeal hearings.
My experience here tells me that you need to hear all sides of the situation in a totally objective way.
However with all due respect to V, Mrs V and all who have made their generally technically correct input on this issue only one side is being presented and we should not forget that.
"How on earth can you be given a "Final Written Warning" if you've never been given any form of warning before?"
Refer to the very first post on the earlier thread
quote "and has had no other significant problems in this time"
Comment; so there have been some problems then.
On a technical point:
There is precedent where you can go straight to Final Written Warning but you have to have a damn good reason and fully documented why the lesser/greater disciplinary measures are not appropriate.
With that point I will withdraw.
|
If it was my wife and on the basis of what I am hearing I would get my lawyer to challenge the whole thing from the "due process" angle. You'll win.
|
To clarify just for you FIF. My wife has had no other warnings other than being told off for wearing the wrong trousers but no formal action was taken about this.
However she has had a history of problems with the individual from whom the claims of racism emanated after she interviewed my wife about the incident and who escalated the whole affair.
Previously this person has:
- Reprimanded my wife in front of other staff for going to the toilet in work hours. My wife was told she wasn't allowed to leave the shop floor for that purpose and should do it during her 1 hour lunch break.
- Consistently rostered her to have to sit at the till for up to 3 1/2 hours at a time despite having been told many times that my wife had a medical condition which had required treatment and made this very uncomfortable.
- Told her she didn't think she 'could cope with the job' after my wife asked if they could reduce her hours slightly so she could spend a bit more time with our son with special needs.
- Has been rude and patronising to her on numerous other occasions for no reason.
FIF asks himself "why didn't they do something about all that then ?"
Because she just wanted a quiet life, to get on with her first proper job in the UK, keep her head down, get some useful experience for a year with what she thought was a good company (ha ha) and not become embroiled in the sort of highly distressing experience we're now having to go through.
Clear enough ?
Thanks again BackRoomers!
|
VM,
Having just read your last post (31/01 @ 14:31) I think I know the company in question. My ex-wife worked there for them for a short period and had exactly the same discussions regarding use of the toilet (clear breach of Health and Safety if it causes discomfort/harm to the individual), ditto the time spent on the till.
No wonder their shares went south.....
Still got various digits and appendages crossed for your both.
ND
|
|
Just read my last post back and it comes across as a bit 'snappy'. That was unintentional so please put it down to lack of sleep as no offence was meant.
|
Hello Again Volvoman
From the incidents you have outlined this would appear to be a history of victimisation and harrassment towards Mrs V. A history of this in addition to the shoddily applied disciplinary procedures make the whole thing very constructive in outlook, that is deliberately designed to get your wife to throw in the towel and walk away.
As I said before If I were the HR manager who had to defend these actions I would be sick on the day of the hearing.
as ever
Mark
|
Hi Mark - and thanks for your input once again.
We feel that this is the real agenda here and the incident on Friday was an opportunity for a certain person to get some brownie points with HQ and do the dirty on my wife.
Anyway have spoken the a very helpful lady from the local law centre and been advised to appeal against the decision and then consider invoking the grievance procedures in respect of all the 'naughty' stuff done to my wife during and prior to this episode.
Not sure if Mrs V is ever gonna be happy working there but she will have to be for a period if she wants to follow the internal grievance route.
The alternative is to take matters external but we're not sure what would be best so would appreciate any advice on this aspect.
We both want the thing exposed for what it was and all the procedural errors to be highlighted so those responsible are taken to task.
We haven't had chance or energy to search the various links and read up on this but would love to know what our options are now and what would be best to do.
Any thoughts ?
Cheers all.
|
|
|
|
