final written warning

Sleipnir

Eurorunner wrote: »

However, I found out at the time that its actually stipulated in our contracts that we cannot do so - IS THIS LEGAL??

No, that's not legal. You have a right under the constitution to join a union. If they try the;
"but you signed a contract which says you can't join a union"

simply having it in a contract of employment doesn't make the constitution null and void! It just shouldn't be in the contract.

dade

Sleipnir wrote: »

simply having it in a contract of employment doesn't make the constitution null and void! It just shouldn't be in the contract.

exactly iof they tried that in teh LRC a rights commissionar woulod laugh it out and in a higher court you'd probably find most judges would consider it an unenforcable clause based on teh fact that under law you have a right to a union, and teh law of teh land would most probably superseed the contract that you signed.

it's similiar to teh non disclosure claused people sign when they leave after being made redundant. I recall one that said i could not allow any legal action to be taken against my former rmployer. i mean WTF? yeah coz if someone took them to court I'm gonna defend them. like wise if i was called as witnedd i'd purger myself to defent a former employer.

you have to hand it to them they do have some crazy notions.

well as of today no response from teh HR manager. Like i said before she's based in NYC (on a side note i do hope she's complying with teh eu privacy directive in relation to personnel recordes leaving teh EU), shw would have recieved my unions email right in time for her morning coffee and bagel. hope she choked on it. chances are that ruined her easter weekend when she reported it to teh CEO.

the_syco

Eurorunner wrote: »

My lot also don't recognise unions. Some years ago - off my own bat - i went about signing up to a union. However, I found out at the time that its actually stipulated in our contracts that we cannot do so - IS THIS LEGAL??

What country are you in? In Ireland, due to the history, companies can't block you from joining a union, but at the same time, they can just not talk to the union.

Eurorunner

the_syco wrote: »

What country are you in? In Ireland, due to the history, companies can't block you from joining a union, but at the same time, they can just not talk to the union.

I'm in Ireland. Good to know national law overrides it.

dade

chances are they put that clause in the contract in the hope that employees with no knowledge of the law would think that they couldn't join a union if they so wished, or that of a problem arose they couldn't get their assistance.

if teh company activly thought about a union when putting their contracts together then they probably did bend the laws a lot to be honest that clause probably saved the company a lot of trouble over teh years.

don't get me wrong unions can be a pain in the ass when they stonewall, but to be honest that's not a union problem but the person doing the negotiations and their particular personalty type. they just don't want to budge or refuse to see things from the other persons point of view. but it's not just union reps that suffer from this pig headed ness. many people in general do and i think in my case teh HR manager suffers from it. I think she feels taht she is right and i should just bow down and take their punishment because thay pay me and that's teh way it goes. unfortuanatly a lot of small businesses suffer this same problem (at least from my experience), they feel that they pay your salary then they can get you to clean the toilet if they want to even if it's not part of your role.

on the flip side their knowledge in the area of employment law is a huge benifit (especially in my case) and you get other perks like cheaper car (use to give a 10% discount with one direct) , house and travel insurance (yearly travel insurance for €65 for the family) through group schemes. they may even get discounts on training and conduct in house traing courses too.

doolox

I have worked for two multinationals who do not recognise unions and don't have unions for their permanent employees.
Up to 5 years ago I would have considered myself anti-union.
Not any more.
After reading the stuff that goes on here I would see them as essential to society and work in general.
It is not enough that an emplyer has a HR department with full access for all employees and a written code of conduct for all to follow as big multinationals have.
If the emplyer is paying for the service of a HR department they will naturally take his side in a dispute every time. Unions are necessary because, if paid for by the employees they will take his side and act in his interest.
The problem starts if organisations of different sizes end up in dispute, a large multinational can bring irresistable pressure to bear on a small, national or regional based union. Likewise a large union facing down a number of smaller, unorganised businesses can bring unfair pressure to bear on them. The best way forward lise in a balance of powers and responsibilities adjudicated by a caring, responsible government.
While not as bad at thios as other countries, Ireland could learn from our European neighbours who take no nonsense from employers with a personal grudge.

dade

still no response form HR on the matter. don't know if that's a good thing in that they've dropped the matter or a bad thing in that the HR manager is flying in to personally hand me my P45 LOL

gerrycollins

dade wrote: »

still no response form HR on the matter. don't know if that's a good thing in that they've dropped the matter or a bad thing in that the HR manager is flying in to personally hand me my P45 LOL

hi again, you could offer to drop your end of the situation if they drop theirs and have no mention on your record?

I know its the easy option for them but if you go job hunting at least there is no outstanding blemish on your record.

for the record I believe you should hang them as much as possible.

dade

gerrycollins wrote: »

hi again, you could offer to drop your end of the situation if they drop theirs and have no mention on your record?

yeah i know what you mean. better for me in the long run, especially with the economic climate out there now.

But the flip side to it is if they decided to try stitch me up again they may decide to do it right this time and then I don't have a leg to stand on and out the door i go. I'd have to be very careful for what little time i had left in the place.

gerrycollins wrote: »

for the record I believe you should hang them as much as possible.

LOL that's what my gut is telling me. for two reasons.

Firstly the obvious one, just coz you own a company doesn't mean that you can throw your ample weight around and just decide stuff happens. you need to operate within the bounds of the law and if you don't know the law the suffer the consequences.

secondly, that I'm not something they stood on while walking the dog that leave a nasty smell. I will stand up for myself and wont let anyone walk all over me.

PCPhoto

Have just read the whole thread .... fair play to ya - standing up for your rights and you are well within your rights and by reading it

- sounds like its simply a case of "CEO getting his knickers in a bunch" I think you said that earlier OP, Anyway, I think that you should allow it to run its course.

If you decide to offer the olive branch - the company will most likely drop it - then couple of weeks down the line you'll get a warning for something trivial and in a short time they will find an excuse to fire you.:eek:

if you stick with it - you'll prob goto the LRC and the company will most likely have findings against them and disciplinary proceedings will be regarded as wrong, in my opinion - this will allow you to continue in your job until they find a different reason to try to fire you:eek:

Always the optimist aren't i ??? ;)

IMO best course is to take the legal route (LRC) and ensure that the company and in particular the CEO are named and shamed for such apalling behaviour. (if you get a LRC date can you let me know and I'll see if I can get some publicity to name and shame CEO)

gerrycollins

dade wrote: »

yeah i know what you mean. better for me in the long run, especially with the economic climate out there now.

But the flip side to it is if they decided to try stitch me up again they may decide to do it right this time and then I don't have a leg to stand on and out the door i go. I'd have to be very careful for what little time i had left in the place.




LOL that's what my gut is telling me. for two reasons.

Firstly the obvious one, just coz you own a company doesn't mean that you can throw your ample weight around and just decide stuff happens. you need to operate within the bounds of the law and if you don't know the law the suffer the consequences.

secondly, that I'm not something they stood on while walking the dog that leave a nasty smell. I will stand up for myself and wont let anyone walk all over me.

well your there over a year so if they wipe the slate clean and you keep your nose clean like it has always been, if they try to stitch you up the new thing in the courts is that your employer has to prove the facts not for you to disprove them.

I ageee, i own my own company, not a big one but i believe that taking care of employees serves the greater good however keeping rule is very important too but logically not the way this guy got on his high horse and him not been reasonable.

Plodman

HR Departments are all the same. they will bow to what seniot management tell them. You should hang in there for your own self respect but try not to let future employers know what happened in case they consider you a trouble maker!
Best of luck

doolox

If you are working for a big company. Just hope Mr Blackberry man gets transferred out of your department and out of your life.
I remember a boss we had who had a stormy relationship with a colleague of mine, somewhat younger than me and rebellious who didn't like taking correction.
He got a transfer to a different department more in keeping with his qualifications, temperment and interests and was ready to go when the boss slapped him with a verbal warning for not wearing safety equipment.
The boss knew that the new area could refuse to take the worker if he had disciplinary proceedings against him.
The new boss simply tore up the warning and ignored it and the worker was taken on the new job, where he is today and enjoying it.
The previous boss, always a bit of a bully, got a transfer elsewhere and was dismissed 6 months later in the new position for bullying.............

Firetrap

It's the CEO who caused trouble for the OP though. I assume the CEO is the top man in the company. Anyway OP, I'm another one of those who are keeping a weather eye on this thread and hoping it works out for you.

InReality

dollox - good story , nice to see the little guy wins the odd time !

dave98

Sleipnir wrote: »

This whole 12 months thing, in your case anyway, would seem to be a red herring. Once you're outside probation, you're entitled to the same fair process as an employee who's there 20 years.

WRONG You still need to have 12months of employment continous before you are covered

doolox

Just read the thread again and noticed this, did he have to reimburse the company for his negligence? Was there disciplinary procedings taken against him for his carelessness and loss of company property?

One law for the rich one for the poor.....................

Sleipnir

dave98 wrote: »

WRONG You still need to have 12months of employment continous before you are covered

Covered for what, specifically?

dade

jubus h Christ all mighty are people stupid?

another letter. We will not deal with the union and you have another week in which to lodge your appeal.

I'm convinced she thinks if she ignores the letters from SIPTU it'll just go away. she was already told it's being refereed to the LRC and she's acting like that never happened.

give me strength

dade

doolox wrote: »

Just read the thread again and noticed this, did he have to reimburse the company for his negligence? Was there disciplinary procedings taken against him for his carelessness and loss of company property?

One law for the rich one for the poor.....................

eh what? he owns the company `why would he have to reimburse the company? in my 10 years experience in various companies I've never come across a case of someone having to reimburse for a lost device. maybe the companies i work for a just lazy like that.

dade

Sleipnir wrote: »

Covered for what, specifically?

i assume he means you need 12 months continuous employment with your current employer before the unfair dismissals act (and others) applies.

Sleipnir

dade wrote: »

i assume he means you need 12 months continuous employment with your current employer before the unfair dismissals act (and others) applies.

I know, but what I object to is the "WRONG" and then "not covered" without him stating exactly what a person "not covered" fby.

I was going to point out that you do of course, have certain rights regardless of whether you're there a year or not. There seems to be a mis-informed opinion out there that if you're not in a company for a year, they can just fire you for anything and you're just "not covered".

"I'm firing you because you're black and because you're only here 11 years, the laws of this land don't apply.:rolleyes:

dade

Sleipnir wrote: »

I know, but what I object to is the "WRONG" and then "not covered" without him stating exactly what a person "not covered" fby.

early morning and still stunned by HRs stupidity & ignorance i take it back LOL. at least he didnt say WRONG blah blab blah FACT

so apart form the equality act, what other legislation would apply? just so i can look into it for extra protection

I was there 11.5 months when the matter arose, but am now with the company 12 months 20 days. I should have realised that starting on April 1st was a sign of things to come LOL

Sleipnir

Have they come back to you at all or is it now just the big elephant in the room?

doolox

Realistically if he owns all the company and is looking to get rid of you he will in some form or way in the future. I'd be making no long-term plans with that company. My background is completely different in that I've worked in multinational share-owned companies where personal differences tend to get washed over by transfers, accountability to large impersonal HR departments etc where people in power cannot use personal grudges to get rid of people they don't like.
I've seldom had a supe or manager for longer that 2 years for example and the good ones tended to make up morale damage caused by the bad. It was a matter of waiting out the storm of the bad ones and keeping your cool, something that unfortunately does not come naturally to me.
I have no experience in union organised workplaces but some appear to function after a fashion with a large degree of animosity between worker and management which seems to be expected as a kind of limited war between both sides. It is however a waste of emotional energy and to be avoided in my opinion.

Dub6Kevin

Hi Dade

Just a word of caution here, while a the outrage and empathy expressed here is justified, some of the employment law advice isn't.

I do have a professional legal training but this is very far from my area of expertise so I am not in a position to give any firm specific (and wouldn't in such a forum anyway).

What I will say is that the company does not have to deal with the union. You have a right to be a member of the union, but the company doesn't have to recognise it. You don't have the right to bring a union rep into a disciplinary meeting and the company doesn't have to deal with it.

You do, however have the right to bring a legal representative to such a meeting. This has been established in case law rather than in statute but it has been held that where so serious a sanction as dismissal is to be considered a person has a right to legal representation. As the representative is of the person's own choice, I feel it would be apt to ask one of SIPTU's inhouse lawyers to attend.

There is the 12 month unboroken service requirement to come under the ambit of the Unfair Dismissal Act but the common law protection against the tort of Wrongful Dismissal applies to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be an arguable case (due to abuse of and failing to comply with process) so don't get caught up on the 12 months.

I think the pragmatic advice about offering to drop the matter in return for the same from their side is good. Just make sure there is a written record that your performance and conduct better than satisfactory and that any references which the company will supply to any future employer will be reasonable. Also that the CEO will not discriminate against you in any way.

Again a lawyer will help you with this. If you can't get a union lawyer to help you, you should look into either hiring one (I know, I know - can be expensive but there may be a way of having the company to aggree to paying the fees at the conclusion of the matter - it is normal for the "loosing" side to pay costs) or even talk to FLAC who may be able to help you free of charge.

Good luck with it.

K

dade

as the unions said I have appealed (through SIPTU) and before their first deadline which was about a month ago, the company keep writing back saying "we're extending the deadline, please take this final opportunity" and the union keep writing back and saying eh we have appealed, we have followed your process now arrange the appeals meeting so we can attend and put the matter to rest. the company keep going "we're not dealing with them" so the union basically said you where given a chance to sit and resolve this in house but you wont so it's going to the LRC.

seriously only for the HR manager was female i's swear it was a pi$$ing contest. it's like she wont back down because she's painted herself into a corner. it's starting to do my head in, i was close to just walking out today coz i don't need the stress and if someone had crossed me they'd have been left with their teeth in their hands, it's so bloody frustrating and stressful.

I've enough stress on my plate, I've been back and forth to the hospital with blackouts and fainting for the last few months, my wife has been ill for over a month, outer and middle ear infections the pain she is in is unreal, she manages 2-4 hours of broken sleep a night, I have my final exams (last year of a degree) in a months time and this BS to deal with.

Sleipnir

Man, I know how stressful it is. I was given a warning about 7 months ago and appealed it. I spent a week compiling information, talking to people, coming in late to go through files, logged calls, scanning them, indexing them and basically not thinking about anything else. It put years on me.

I blew (nearly) everything my manager brought against me clean out of the water. 95% of what she brought up as a problem was just wrong. Incorrect; plain and simple. She didn't do her research at all and I have to say I was quite disappointed with her level of professionalism!

The senior managers did not uphold my appeal though I found out later on that this was only because to overturn it would have destoyed all my managers credibility within the team. The were quite shocked as to the lengths I went to in order to defend myself.

At the final meeting where I said I was accepting it as there was no other course of action left open to me, I presented a letter with the final closing points e.g. manager failing to adher to procedure, using the incorrect procedure etc and the two managers read it all and said they would have no problem with that going on to the record which to me says; "what you're saying is correct and we acknowledge that"

So actually, my manager came off the worst in their eyes!


I don't know what you can do except point out your constitutional right to representation by your union. The HR person just seems to point-blank be refusing to acknowledge their existance.

We note that it is now finally acknowledged that the Company is not obliged to deal directly with a trade union

What does that even mean? I'd be looking for an explanation of where and how they came to that conclusion.

It's bordering on constructive dismissal, in my opinion.

dade

Jesus mate that's hard going, personally i wouldn't have backed down. so what if the whole management team look incompetent, if the junior/departmental managers have no credibility left after your case then they had none before it and that's a serious position for a company to be in.

if i was a senior manager and that came up, I'd over turn it because it's right and then look at why the managers have lost credibility and rectify that. these managers will end up ruining the organisation in the long run and the company should cut them loose before they destroy it.

Sleipnir wrote: »

What does that even mean? I'd be looking for an explanation of where and how they came to that conclusion.

probably her slanted view of this from the Siptu Letter

You are entitled to communicate with your staff member directly and you are quite right to say that you are not required to communicate directly with SIPTU; this is not an issue for me. However, you have received correspondence that has been sent by me on behalf of our member, this is his right as he has asked us to represent his views.

in this SIptu say yeah you don't have to talk to us, you only have to talk to our member, but we will be talking to you on his behalf.

I honestly don't thing the HR manager knows her a hole from her elbow.

and my manager the incompetent tosser, what's he doing? spending his day on youtube. no support from day 1, not hows things with that matter is there anything i can do, no he's just covering his backside coz he knows that the big boss is a pain to deal with, he's afraid of him and doesn't want it landing on his desk. some bloody manager.

Sleipnir wrote: »

It's bordering on constructive dismissal, in my opinion.

yeah I've started to look for work already, but as everyone knows things are dry out there at the minute. but once it comes up I'll take what i can to get out then let them have it in court for constructive. I plan on signing nothing except some document that clearly states that the allegations are false.

already dumped all my emails into PST files on an external drive, gonna print them all out later today too then start a proper paper trail. I was seriously considering extending the olive branch to them but not now.

Sleipnir wrote: »

I don't know what you can do except point out your constitutional right to representation by your union. The HR person just seems to point-blank be refusing to acknowledge their existance.

.

that's the thing, from day one we've told her that, we've not only pointed to the legislation but to the actual section and paragraph and she still refuses to accept it

dade

Dub6Kevin wrote: »

What I will say is that the company does not have to deal with the union. You have a right to be a member of the union, but the company doesn't have to recognise it. You don't have the right to bring a union rep into a disciplinary meeting and the company doesn't have to deal with it.

actually under SI146 i have the right to union representation during all disciplinary proceedings. this was signed by Mary harney in 2000 when she was minister for trade and employment.

section 4 paragraph 4 reads

SI146 wrote:

For the purposes of this Code of Practice, “employee representative” includes a colleague of the employee's choice and a registered trade union but not any other person or body unconnected with the enterprise.

so in statute i have the right to union representation at all discipline hearings but not the right to bring a lawyer

Dub6Kevin wrote: »

You do, however have the right to bring a legal representative to such a meeting. This has been established in case law rather than in statute but it has been held that where so serious a sanction as dismissal is to be considered a person has a right to legal representation. As the representative is of the person's own choice, I feel it would be apt to ask one of SIPTU's inhouse lawyers to attend.

in the above law a legal Representative is actually not allowed, however I'd assume if and when the matter went before the LRC then that would differ greatly.