final written warning

dade

ok about a month a god the CEO lost his blackberry, I got a new one in for him and configured it. he asked me to stay late and give him the handset when he was finished at a meeting (suppose to finish at 7pm) I finish work at 5. normally i wouldn't have an issue working late if the situation warrants it coz i work in IT. Anyway I explained to him that on this particular night i was unable to stay because i had college lectures to attend at 6pm (true). but would leave his handset for him on his desk.

that was a Tuesday, Sunday get an email from him saying people can't here him when he's on the phone. I don't have a blackberry and am not required to work on call or check my company email out of hours. SO i only received the mail on Monday morning and replied immediately. i asked him had any of the volume settings changed or had the device fallen or anything. he never replied.

I got called to a meeting and was told i put a complain in and was being given a final written warning. I was with the company 11 months and according to their employee handbook they can fast track discipline for any employee under 12 months service.

anyway obviously i refused to sign the warning, and was afforded the right to appeal. This is where it gets messy. I called Siptu, I'm a member for about 6 years but the company do not have a union. Anyway I said that my union official would represent me during the discipline process but the company are refusing to recognise them. but my understanding is that under SI146 of 2000 i am entitled to union representation during discipline proceedings.

I keep getting letters from HR asking that i sign the warning or appeal (even though my union wrote to her and outlined the grounds for appeal). so I'm getting so p'd off that it's becoming difficult to come to work anymore and I'm considering going to work in McDonald's.

to make matters worse my health is not good at the minute, basically run down from working and college, final year of a night time degree so you cam imagine the stress.

the reasoning behind the warning was a lack of performance, but i have only had one performance review which was in July 08 an that was pretty good. my probation ended in sept 08 and nothing was said, according to the handbook i was due a review in December and this has not happened so again i can only assume that there was noting wrong and that the company were happy with my performance.

so basically what am i asking? am i wrong in my understanding of the law? should i just sign the bloody warning and be done with it. obviously that leaves me in a very precarious situation in that any minor issue and i can be out on my ear. or should i tough it out?

Nody

A company can choose not to recognise unions to my knowledge so that would at best be treated as any one else for the appeal.

Fast tracking in the first 12 months sounds a bit odd for a disciplinary process but on the flip coin of it they can let you go with out reason for the first 12 months as well.

At the end of the day if you have not gotten a warning to date I'd appeal it using the reasons given by the union but with out union representation. That is most likely the easiest route for you and if the appeal is not upheld you can possibly use that at a future date for incorrect dismissal (but only possibly).

AARRRGH

Unfortunately you haven't reached the 12 months continuous employment by that employer to be covered by full employment rights.

They know this and are trying to get rid of you as they will have a very difficult time (i.e. near impossible) continuining with their current strategy next month.

dade

@ AARRRGH
I'm actually over months with them now, the issue came up a week before the 12 month mark, which was April 1st. so i'm with they 12 months and 7 days now

@ Nody
my understanding is that they can ignore the union when dealing with collective bargaining, but not discipline because SI 146 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000 Section 4 paragraph 4 states

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.

it does not stat that the employer can choose to ignore the union as a Representative any place in that document.

Sleipnir

His probation ended in September 08 so he is entitled to "full employment rights".
That's why they have had to revert to their disciplinary process. If he was still in probation, they could have just let him go on the spot.

There's no law as "you must be in employment for 1 year before you are covered by full employment rights" that I've ever heard of. Open to correction though.

OP, have you contacted SIPTU and asked them if you are entitled to have one of them sit in on the disciplinary process? I'm sure you are, otherwise what's the point in being a member.

dade

Sleipnir wrote: »

There's no law as "you must be in employment for 1 year before you are covered by full employment rights" that I've ever heard of. Open to correction though..

the unfair dismissals act does not come into play until you have completed 12 months regardless of your probation unfortunately.

Sleipnir wrote: »

OP, have you contacted SIPTU and asked them if you are entitled to have one of them sit in on the disciplinary process? I'm sure you are, otherwise what's the point in being a member.

yeah he has said that i was entitled to have one present, that's where i got the info about SI 146.

also according to SI 146 i should be told in advance of the process taking place, the charge against me, the possible sanctions that can be held against me if the allegations are found to be true. Also should have been given the right to representation form the outset and should have been afforded the right to "confront and question witnesses" none of these have been afforded to me.

as for the point of being a member, apart for the obvious, you can get discounts on car and holiday insurance through them LOL

AARRRGH

OK, you are there more than 12 months now.

The fact that your only previous performance review is positive stands strongly in your favour.

Have you had verbal warnings about your poor performance?

Has your employer created a plan and worked with you on that plan to improve your performance?

I have tried to get rid of people in the past for under performing at it is near impossible.

Sleipnir wrote:

There's no law as "you must be in employment for 1 year before you are covered by full employment rights" that I've ever heard of. Open to correction though.

http://0.0.7.185/ga/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#s2_p1

dade

AARRRGH wrote: »

Have you had verbal warnings about your poor performance?

none, in fact my last review said i was held in high regard by my team mates.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Has your employer created a plan and worked with you on that plan to improve your performance?

apparently that is part of the process once i just accept the inevitable and sign the warning, which i wont do unless i have no choice and have exhausted all other options. coz it was the CEO and he's trowing his weight around.

to be honest if it was a fair situation and i was acting up and not doing my job etc then i'd hold my hands up high and accept it. But I feel this this a BS and a trumpeted up allegation

AARRRGH wrote: »

http://0.0.7.185/ga/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#s2_p1

link doesn't work

gerrycollins

compliments to you on your knowledge of the law, you are fully right about representation etc I think its the HR people who dont.

At this stage I would consider professional legal advice because they were within their rights to issue a final written warning with the 12 months and that to me sounds like giving you a chance to prove your self again(a harsh way I know)considering they could have just dismissed you.

However along with the warning they are obliged to offer you the chance to appeal, they need to provide you with actual proof of your under performance, have they presented this to you?

AARRRGH

dade wrote: »

link doesn't work

Sorry -

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html

Look at section 2.

dade

gerrycollins wrote: »

compliments to you on your knowledge of the law, you are fully right about representation etc I think its the HR people who don't.

Know your enemy . I have an interest in employment law after years of being walked over as a younger worker. so i made it a point of learning what i could or at least the sources to get information if needed. My father in law is a long time member of SIPTU and suggested it after i was unfairly selected for redundancy about 8 years ago

gerrycollins wrote: »

At this stage I would consider professional legal advice because they were within their rights to issue a final written warning with the 12 months and that to me sounds like giving you a chance to prove your self again(a harsh way I know)considering they could have just dismissed you..

my union rep has said that if they keep refusing me my right to representation that he will take the matter to a third party, i assume he means rights commissioner. i haven't discussed this with him yet.

what grounds to they have to dismiss me prior to the 12 months? i had received no warnings verbal or otherwise. i was a full time employee and should be afforded the same rights as any other full timer that had more than 12 months (unfair dismissals act aside). so their "fast track" discriminates based on time of service so under SI 146 their discipline process is neither fair nor just.

if the issue was performance related that when my probation expired they should have raised the matter then, 5.5 months after my probation ends they raise it. sorry but they cant retrospectively extend probation like that. if the probation period ends and they do not address any issue the it's safe to assume that there was no issues and they where happy with me as an employee. so any performance related issues would be outside the probation period. as they never held a review in December again it's safe to assume that between Sept 1 and Dec 31 that there was again no issues because other wise they should have been raised. so any performance related issues could only have happened between Jan 1 and Mar 16 the day i was issued the warning.

their letter said continual under performance so given the above information and up until Mar 15 i had received no warnings and my direct manager had never spoken to me about work not done then again it is IMO safe to assume that there are no issues with performance. because if i was a manager if someone under me wa sunder performing i wouldn't wait about to tell them, I'd set up a formal meeting and discuss the matter and then discuss some KPIs and do my best to ensure they met the new targets etc.

gerrycollins wrote: »

However along with the warning they are obliged to offer you the chance to appeal, they need to provide you with actual proof of your under performance, have they presented this to you?

I have been offered an appeal but this is the issue I want my union rep there as is my right they are refusing. so the appeals process has not taken place,. Also no proof of under performance has been provided, my direct manager came out with some crap about stuff that was suppose to be done ( i agreed that it was) but then i told him that all this work had been put on hold because the company could just about afford to pay us and that he had agreed to hold off on most of it. the stuff that was not put on hold was either completed or in progress. I even emailed my manager and I said considering my Probation ended in Sept, and I had no review in Dec as I expected is it safe to assume that up until DEC 31 there was no issue with my performance? his reply wa that my probation was 12 months (i corrected him on this by showing him the handbook/contract) and then he said take the matter up with HR I can't answer that.

dade

AARRRGH wrote: »

Sorry -

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html

Look at section 2.

2.—(1) This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

( a ) an employee (other then a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him and whose dismissal does not result wholly or mainly from the matters referred to in section 6 (2) (f) of this Act,


i assume this is what you refer to. i totally agree the unfair dismissals act did not apply in my case if that had fired me. but they didn't. as i have not past the 12 month period it would apply in my case i believe.

i assume you where talking to Sleipnir when he said there was no such 12 exclusion in the unfair dismissals act

InReality

Op I think your pretty much on the right track. I think from all you've said in your post you have a pretty tight case.

I think you should continue your appeal process as planned.

If you don't appeal , my guess is the CEO will just apply more pressure and you could somehow end up out of a job.

If you continue your appeal , i'd say they will keep you on while that process continues.
The CEO could likely forget about his/her tantrum, over time , and as long as they know you won't lie down over this , they may just back off completely.

I realise its a sh*** situation to be in, but on my reading of it your doing the right thing.

gerrycollins

to dismiss you prior to your 12 months end they actually dont have to tell you. they can if they want but they are not obliged to. However if you think you were dismissed on equaility grounds before teh 12 months end then you may have a case. I still believe they were "warning" you and giving you a chance hence the "just sign the thing" attitude, very slack IMO.

In term of forwarning you the normal procedure is to "invite" you to a meeting to discuss your performance etc. however in the case of a last minute thing it is accecptable for them to just call you in so long as they explain whats going on and your rights for representation, appeal etc you can at that stage postpone the meeting yourself until you have such representation.

Overall from your posts,granted I'm only hearing your side, IMO the company have flouted every basic rule when dealing with a displinary situation. Stick to your guns you fully entitled to.

Sleipnir

AARRRGH wrote: »

http://0.0.7.185/ga/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#s2_p1

Well, that's the unfair dismissals act but as Dade hasn't been dismissed, so I don't think it really applies anyway. It also doesn't mean that he's not "covered by full employment rights" such as the company following their own disciplinary process etc.

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.

OP, you know more about this than any of us it would seem!

If you take the written warning based on your performance, I guess it would make it much easier for them to dismiss you, based on your performance.

"Hey, you signed this final written warning two months ago which states that you were under-performing. Therefore, you admitted that you were under-performing. We've seen no improvement so we are dismissing you"

They have skipped to the final written warning because that's the last step they can take before dismissing you.
They say they've done that because of the seriousness of the situation even though they've never questioned your performance before, and won't give you the exact reasons. Total Bull****.

As you know that you are entitled to union representation so if it was me, I would print out copies of SI146 highlighting the relevant sections, request a meeting with HR and present them with the information and ask for a response within one or two days. Advise them that if they still refuse your right to have union representation, your union will take your case to a rights commisioner. Of course, you should discuss all this with your union rep first.

dade

gerrycollins wrote: »

In term of forwarning you the normal procedure is to "invite" you to a meeting to discuss your performance etc. however in the case of a last minute thing it is acceptable for them to just call you in so long as they explain whats going on and your rights for representation, appeal etc you can at that stage postpone the meeting yourself until you have such representation.

I've been told by my union that they must forewarn you AND afford you the right to seek representation, they must inform you of the allegations against you and the possible sanctions that can be imposed before that meeting even happens. they never did this.

also at the initial meeting it wasn't a case of we feel your under performing give us your side and we'll consider the ramifications and come back to you. it was pretty much "Sit down, your here because the CEO thinks you are not providing him the level of service he expects so your getting a final written, now tell us your side" then i was told i could appeal and some senior manager in the company would hear my appeal if i lodged it within 5 days, like some manager is going to disagree with the owner and CEO of the company.

gerrycollins wrote: »

Overall from your posts,granted I'm only hearing your side, IMO the company have flouted every basic rule when dealing with a disciplinary situation. Stick to your guns you fully entitled to.

I'd post her letters up but that might give the game away as to who i am and who i work for LOL.

my grounds for appeal state that they have ignored my rights, they have not followed any recognised discipline process, the continually refuse me my rights oh an of course the fact that a final written for alleged lack of performance with no prior history of it is total BS and extreme. especially considering the company's discipline history. two lads in the office decided one evening to go three rounds in the corridors after many a consultation both shook hands and the matter dropped. so someone can assault someone shake hands and its left alone but someone doesn't stay late and they're hanging by a thread, again its neither fair nor just.

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. .

which is another reason for my appeal, their discipline process is neither fair nor just for this reason. if I'm full time I'm full time be it I'm there 6 months and 1 day or I'm there 20 years i should be treated the same and their process in this regard is possibly illegal.

Sleipnir wrote: »

If you take the written warning based on your performance, I guess it would make it much easier for them to dismiss you, based on your performance.
.

exactly my feelings, especially when they are in the ****ter financially and need to cut costs, and they did not renew a bunch of contracts for most of the contractors that had working for them last year.

Sleipnir wrote: »

They have skipped to the final written warning because that's the last step they can take before dismissing you.
They say they've done that because of the seriousness of the situation even though they've never questioned your performance before, and won't give you the exact reasons. Total Bull****..

exactly if it was that serious i would have been shown the door, lack of performance IMO is not a reason to fire someone, not reason to being someone up on serious charges. unless there is a long documented history of it, so in your probation you mess up and under perform, you're given the benefit of the doubt so they extend it by 6 months and in that time nothing changes then yeah cut me lose, my situation is the opposite, a glowing review 3 months in stating I'm held i high regard and no complaints or reviews since.

Sleipnir wrote: »

As you know that you are entitled to union representation so if it was me, I would print out copies of SI146 highlighting the relevant sections, request a meeting with HR and present them with the information

my union rep sent her a letter last night doing just this, i nearly wet myself reading it he pretty much said "you really do need to shut up and learn the law before you hang the company" he basically copied the relevant section into the letter and said I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with this legislation and if you continue to ignore our members rights then we will take the matter before the courts.

i get a reply from her today stating that i should serious consider my actions which to me reads as a threat to back down or I'm fired.

Zambia

Ok from my understanding

Your being given a final written warning for

Not fixing a Blackberry on a weekend where you where not meant to be working?


Does not seem like a case for even a written warning. That said however your opportunities in this firm under its current administration are pretty screwed going forward.

dade

Zambia232 wrote: »

Not fixing a Blackberry on a weekend where you where not meant to be working?
.

and not staying late the previous week coz he wanted me to hand it personally to him and not just leave it on his desk. but unfortunately i had an engagement to attend and the handing over of a blackberry is not IMO an emergency that requires me to stay late.

Zambia232 wrote: »

Does not seem like a case for even a written warning. That said however your opportunities in this firm under its current administration are pretty screwed going forward.

yeah i was thinking of leaving anyway. not learning anything new they don't invest in their IT infrastructure, i have to cannibalise parts and small stuff i do buy is on my Credit card and i claim it back as expenses coz they've used up all their good will with their suppliers

kmick

Instead of spending time (and I would class it as wasting time) going to unions, attending meetings etc I would quietly look for another job and then quit when I found one. Also I would not sign anything before I go. I would take a contract role and walk out the door basically. You have to know when to choose your battles sometimes. Its back to the old days of when your boss says jump you ask high and buy him a coffee as well. Be smart and walk now. Try and do it as professionally as possible obviously.

Zambia

dade wrote: »

yeah i was thinking of leaving anyway. not learning anything new they don't invest in their IT infrastructure, i have to cannibalise parts and small stuff i do buy is on my Credit card and i claim it back as expenses coz they've used up all their good will with their suppliers

I know how you feel I have been there except i called in my lawyer and asked for him to sit in on the meeting and they could explain to him. That caused a right sh1t storm

However in the end I really just left after everything settled down.

Sleipnir

They do have the right to refuse a solicitor sitting in on disciplinary meetings, but not a union rep. It amazes me how little HR knows about the law and even their own procedures.

e.g. I was given a warning last year and was told that if I didn't like it, I could lodge a grievance under their grievance procedure. I read it and it stated;
"This procedure cannot be used as part of the disciplinary procedure"

Idiots didn't even read their own policy.

dade

kmick wrote: »

Instead of spending time (and I would class it as wasting time) going to unions, attending meetings etc I would quietly look for another job and then quit when I found one. Also I would not sign anything before I go. I would take a contract role and walk out the door basically. You have to know when to choose your battles sometimes.

Fully intend to, every other night I've been looking, well at least the nights I'm not in college. it's a little slow at the minute but God loves a trier

Zambia232 wrote: »

I know how you feel I have been there except i called in my lawyer and asked for him to sit in on the meeting and they could explain to him. That caused a right sh1t storm

.

i can imagine, especially when they found out that you couldn't actually bring a lawyer into the meetings

Sleipnir wrote: »

They do have the right to refuse a solicitor sitting in on disciplinary meetings, but not a union rep. It amazes me how little HR knows about the law and even their own procedures.

e.g. I was given a warning last year and was told that if I didn't like it, I could lodge a grievance under their grievance procedure. I read it and it stated;
"This procedure cannot be used as part of the disciplinary procedure"

Idiots didn't even read their own policy.

i know it's like they sit their HR management exams (if they even take them) and then its a case that they do what the boss tells them and sure if he says its ok then happy days, and sure who needs to be up skilling and keeping current.

in our case the silly bint is based in NYC, I think she's studying over there so we have no full time on site HR rep and she's probably working from US law and not IE law.

anyway sent her letter on to the union today and as usually cc'd her and just said Please see further letter attached, please call me to discuss. So she can say the company wont discuss the matter with the union or wont write to them but I will send everything to them.

Oh and i forgot how to write, amnesia i think can't remember what my signature is so I'm signing nothing and will sign nothing when i leave.

Zambia

dade wrote: »

i can imagine, especially when they found out that you couldn't actually bring a lawyer into the meetings

Well what they where implying was illegal so actually they could not deny my lawyer access if they wanted to ask me about it.

In your case you would be correct

dade

union got back to me about her letter. he's referring the matter to the rights commissioner.

guess i better start backing stuff up and borrowing any Intellectual property that i want to keep

Sleipnir

Great news. That'll be fun for the HR person to explain to the CEO!

dade

true here's to hoping it doesn't get too nasty in here though.

i reckon she'll have a **** fit when she reads his letter and I'll get dragged up on some other BS charge, they may even try and sack me,. But he's warning her that ANY action taken against me until this hearing is held will prejudice their position.

I've every intention of getting out of here and moving jobs, i guess now's a good time.

I'll keep you folks updated on the matter

Xiney

I have nothing to add except, fair play! Do keep us updated.

Elessar

Posting here to subscribe to thread, keep us informed.

dade

well haven't i got a following

teh union sent her an email today, they didn't even bother with a letter. basically they said. we have tried to discuss the matter,we have tried to work with the company but you have refused. Our member has apointed us as his representitve as is his right, on a number of occasions we have put our grounds for appeal forward but you choose to ignore them, we have followed your appeal process and you refuse to recognise this so you have left us no option but to take the matter to teh LRC for adjudication.

We do not recognise your discipline process and any further sanctions you place on our member will only prejudice your position.

I better get in early on tuesday in case my network account is locked out and my desk is cleared off LOL.

honestly though it kinds pisses me off that it's got this far. i mean if i'm wrong then i'm wrong and take my punishment, but all i want is the process to be fair. in this case i feel it wasn't fair, i think the CEO got his panties in a bind coz his blackberry didn't work and no one answered him on a sunday when he sent an email. i just want the punishment to fit teh crime, IMO i have done nothing wrong, there's no past record of misconduct or lack of performanc eon my part, and i just wanted my rights recognised and afforded to me. but they continued to refuse me my rights and continued to say i hadn't appealed. christ I even copied and pasted the content from the unions first letter that outlined the grounds for the appeal and sent it to the HR manager weeks ago and she still insists i havent followed protocol or missed her deadline. i really do thing she suffers from what some techies call an ID10T error code ;-)

well happy easter folks I'll post up if i hear anyting else

bohsboy

Staunch it out mate.

Typical management scum trying to bully you out.

Eurorunner

I wish the OP the best of luck in his efforts. I used to be totally anti-union up until I joined my current company - believing that they were a negative force. However, my experience with a US multinational (that doesnt recognise unions) has totally changed my opinion on that issue.

HR departments in these places are totally arrogant. Theres a culture of everyone being 'yes' men/women - and ANYONE who doesnt go with the flow is likely to find themselves in bother.

I think this whole policy of only allowing another employee as a witness is flawed and wrong - its something that should be changed. Who wants to implicate (cos its quite possible in some companies that it will be seen this way) another employee in the process? I know in my company, 99% of people would feel too intimidated to go along as witness. Makes it akward then for the 'accused' to have to ask someone.

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??

HR dept.'s in my experience tend to be arrogant in their approach. This arrogance leads them to drop the ball all the time. HOwever, in 99% of cases, they know that they can bully and intimidate the employee into compliance or get their way in terms of expulsion. It is the rare few that are prepared to stand up and be counted - and for that you are to be commended.

Someone mentioned that you should forget about it and find another job. I disagree to an extent. Yes, look for another job - but in the meantime, if you feel that you have a case, fight the bastards. You'll feel all the better for having done so when you come out at the other end of it.

A lot of companies are also prepared to settle outside court (if it gets that far) when it comes to unfair dismissal as cases taken at a lower level (ie. non high court cases) involve smaller sums - and they are prepared to treat these as an overhead. Furthermore, settling out of court avoids the bad publicity that they should have gotten. Most people cannot afford to take things that step further (high court) due to the exorbitant costs involved and due to our legal system, theres still a possibiilty of failure.

The very best of luck. Cover all your bases and keep ahead of them. Will follow this thread with interest.

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.