Verbal Warning.. What do you think?

Fleawuss

seamus wrote: »

I'm not really going to go back and edit my post, though I accept that my post is partially incorrect and misleading.

seamus wrote: »

Companies are constrained by general guidelines of what a process should look like, though they are not specifically bound to any formal process defined in law - thus they are free to create their own process.

Not quite that simple: as already pointed out any process they create must be based on the principles pointed out to you. Re-asserting that fundamental principles can be regarded as "guidelines" is doubly misleading and leads me to believe that you don't actually understand the difference.

The guidelines are available here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Good_Workplace_Relations/codes_practice/COP3/

seamus wrote: »

The test in court is about whether the process followed was fair, and as you rightly corrected me - follows natural law.

"Court" is the important word there though. One can argue in court that the verbal warning would be found to be invalid - if the OP found themselves dismissed and challenging that dismissal in a number of months' time.

I believe this is incorrect. The WRC would be the forum of first recourse.

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't mean that in the immediate term the OP can do anything about the fact that her employer considers her to have been warned. No employment laws have been broken because employment rights in regards to dismissal really only kick in when you've been dismissed. So there's nothing the OP can legally do about this.

This is untrue. The WRC is immediately available; a rights commissioner was another possibility but this may have changed since 2015. I am a little rusty here.

seamus wrote: »

The fact that her employer thinks she has been warned - regardless of how invalid that warning is - also affects the OPs relationship with that employer.

So the advice in my previous post remains the same - there's nothing she can do about this except to keep her personal life more personal in future.

I find your post to be extraordinarily arrogant and ill informed. Given the consequences to other people's working lives you should reconsider your contributions.

Eoin

Fleawuss wrote: »

Were you advised in advance of the "chat" that a complaint had been made?
Was the chat presented to you as a chat or were you told that a complaint had been made?
Does your employer have a written disciplinary procedure?
Why are you back in on Monday?

If you feel that fair procedures were not followed then a quick google will bring you to several places where good advice is available. It is possible that a successful challenge on procedural grounds would remove any invalidly applied sanction from an employee's record.

To repeat myself, it's worth finding out what the manager thinks the verbal warning actually means. Marching in with the rulebook and citing employment law may not be good for the working relationship, if the manager doesn't realise that a verbal warning is more official than it sounds like it is.

Edit: it depends on what outcome the OP is hoping for.

If it's to contest the reason for the warning, then I'd drop it. You may not have been in work at the time and all that, but it sounds like a bugbear for the manager. So as others have said, don't tell that snitch anything again and take it on the chin.

If it's to contest having a warning on your record - then check to see if there is actually a record of it, or if the manager just thought they were just trying to make things clear.

Mrs OBumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

The WRC would be the forum of first recourse.

But nothing they could do would increase your chances of getting another job anywhere in the industry.

Sometimes people forget what a small country this really is.

Fleawuss

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But nothing they could do would increase your chances of getting another job anywhere in the industry.

Sometimes people forget what a small country this really is.

Sometimes people forget that dismissal is a long way from verbal warning. Workers overestimate the networking of employers.

Fleawuss

Eoin wrote: »

To repeat myself, it's worth finding out what the manager thinks the verbal warning actually means. Marching in with the rulebook and citing employment law may not be good for the working relationship, if the manager doesn't realise that a verbal warning is more official than it sounds like it is.

Edit: it depends on what outcome the OP is hoping for.

If it's to contest the reason for the warning, then I'd drop it. You may not have been in work at the time and all that, but it sounds like a bugbear for the manager. So as others have said, don't tell that snitch anything again and take it on the chin.

If it's to contest having a warning on your record - then check to see if there is actually a record of it, or if the manager just thought they were just trying to make things clear.

I agree with you to a certain extent: any competent manager would be looking for a good working atmosphere but not at any price. To a certain extent that relationship has been damaged by:
work colleague running with a story
manager taking action in the manner outlined (taking it at face value).

Taking it on the chin isn't good advice IMHO. A difficult conversation needs to be had: the manager is at fault (taking the description at face value) and has acted outside fair procedures. Letting them away with it does nothing for improving the situation down the line.

The issue itself: it's absurd. The creche is taking themselves terribly seriously and seeking to control employees when they are not at work and in a social setting. (Again, taking the story at face value). I mean, she's not running for President of the USA or Foreign Secretary of the UK is she? :eek: