Possibly been victimised question

DoomZ

I have some difficulties at work. I have asked for a one to one meeting with a manager in person. He said no to a face to face meeting and will only do a audio conference one (different offices)...I'm very uncomfortable with this...I'd perfer a face to face.
Do I have the right to request this?

Ray Palmer

Not seeing how this is victimisation. You can always state you would prefer to meet face to face and if you feel the audio conference is really not working you will call a halt to it.
The fact the manager is not in your office just sounds like a logistic issue

blindsider

Is this your own boss? If so, I presume you meet him regularly anyway?

If not, have you discussed the issue with your boss?

Audio conferences can be a bit impersonal, but they are efficient....


Why do you think this is victimisation?

Mrs OBumble

Half the people I work with have their manager in another country, not just another office! The whole company works with audio conferences, and then have regular meetings with their manager in this way.


Are you used to doing them?

Michael D Not Higgins

Audio conference? Are there other people on the call?

DoomZ

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm going through something with the manager about been victimised by him. Meeting him along with a union rep is what I wanted.

DoomZ

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Audio conference? Are there other people on the call?

Thats what I'm concerned about.

Michael D Not Higgins

Will your union rep be in the room with you?

DoomZ

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Will your union rep be in the room with you?

No..manager wants her to call in to conference too.

Mrs OBumble

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Audio conference? Are there other people on the call?

If there are, then whatever technology you are using to manage the call should show them.

OP, can you clarify why you think audio-con for a meeting is a problem?

Dyr

victimization is a specific term in employment law, a manager refusing to meet face to face wont really fall into that category, unless theres some other context to their position

Michael D Not Higgins

As long as the manager, you and the union rep are all on the teleconference then I don't see the issue.

DoomZ

Bambi wrote: »

victimization is a specific term in employment law, a manager refusing to meet face to face wont really fall into that category, unless theres some other context to their position

The victimisation issue is not the audio conference. .its another issue. Manager wants to to deal with this other issue over a conference call.
I believe the manager is trying to control the meeting on his terms.

DoomZ

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

As long as the manager, you and the union rep are all on the teleconference then I don't see the issue.

Issue 1: unfair advantage to manager.
Issue 2: I don't want to use this method.
Issue 3: Manager has admin controls on the call. i.e. mute his side of the call (maybe someone advising him on his side, unknown to me.
Issue: He may "drop" the call to give himself an advantage/ time to deflect or build a defence.

DoomZ

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Half the people I work with have their manager in another country, not just another office! The whole company works with audio conferences, and then have regular meetings with their manager in this way.


Are you used to doing them?

No..no experience with them.
Areas we are based in are not prohibitably far from each our.

DoomZ

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If there are, then whatever technology you are using to manage the call should show them.

OP, can you clarify why you think audio-con for a meeting is a problem?

He has admin controls. My line will not have any other functions and cannot show details. No screen on phone.

davo10

OP he has those controls anyway, even if it's face to face he can leave the room to take advice. Also, it would be highly unlikely that he would not be accompanied by another member of staff either from Management/HR/ legal. You may not be able to dictate the manner of the meeting if audio conferencing is regularly used in the company to communicate.

Like others, I can't see how this in itself can be viewed as victimisation.

DoomZ

davo10 wrote: »

OP he has those controls anyway, even if it's face to face he can leave the room to take advice. Also, it would be highly unlikely that he would not be accompanied by another member of staff either from Management/HR/ legal. You may not be able to dictate the manner of the meeting if audio conferencing is regularly used in the company to communicate.

Like others, I can't see how this in itself can be viewed as victimisation.

Please read my posts....
The audio conference is NOT the victimization issue.... the victimization issue is something else (not mentioned on this thread)

The way he wants to discuss it on audio conference is not imo suitable.

Mrs OBumble

DoomZ wrote: »

He has admin controls. My line will not have any other functions and cannot show details. No screen on phone.

You're using boards: you clearly have access to a computer.

Set up on Skype, and use it.

davo10

DoomZ wrote: »

Please read my posts....
The audio conference is NOT the victimization issue.... the victimization issue is something else (not mentioned on this thread)

The way he wants to discuss it on audio conference is not imo suitable.

I appreciate that but if he is based in a different location, many would see it as an acceptable means of communication. I'm not sure that you can dictate the medium, if it went to an employment tribunal, he will be able to say he offered to discuss the matter without delay but you refused. As others have stated, managers are often not even in the same country so this medium is recognised as being acceptable.

He is facilitating the meeting where you can air your grievance, it is not a legal requirement that this be face to face.

DoomZ

davo10 wrote: »

I appreciate that but if he is based in a different location, many would see it as an acceptable means of communication. I'm not sure that you can dictate the medium, if it went to an employment tribunal, he will be able to say he offered to discuss the matter without delay but you refused. As others have stated, managers are often not even in the same country so this medium is recognised as being acceptable.

He is facilitating the meeting where you can air your grievance, it is not a legal requirement that this be face to face.

Thats your interpretation, do I also have rights? Yes
Just because he is the manager it does not give him sole rights to dictate the meeting medium.
Many would see this medium as unacceptable medium for such a thing as a allegation of victimization and would quickly act to sort it out.

My request for a meeting in person is also reasonable and I believe that I would not have fair and due process on a audio conference.

Thanks for all your info. I'm now going to leave this thread.

davo10

DoomZ wrote: »

Thats your interpretation, do I also have rights? Yes
Just because he is the manager it does not give him sole rights to dictate the meeting medium.
Many would see this medium as unacceptable medium for such a thing as a allegation of victimization and would aqact to sort it out.

My request for a meeting in person is also reasonable and I believe that I would not have fair and due process on a audio conference.

Thanks for all your info. I'm now going to leave this thread.

Okey dokey, just trying to help before you start making demands for rights you believe you have but may not in fact have.

blindsider

On the off-chance that you pop in for a sneaky peek.....

I suggest you put your objections to the tele-conference in writing - send it to HR and your boss. Ask for a f-to-f meeting.

I'm going to be direct here....

You come across as a bit 'hot-headed' - if that's a fair remark, how do you propose to deal with this? If you say something in the heat of the moment, you can't 'un-say' it. (If it's not a fair remark, please re-read the thread and see if you can understand why I'd post that. If you still can't see it, then perhaps I'm mistaken, and I'll apologise publicly to you.)

You came to an anonymous forum for objective and impartial advice.

I'm not a long-time contributor here, but in the few months I have posted in this forum, ALL the advice given is well-meant. Sometimes I don't agree with all contributions, and there are 1-2 WUM's IMO - but 99% of people post here to help others who may not be as knowledgeable.

You may not get the answers you want, but that doens't mean they're wrong. Good, honest answers from people who have expertise and experience in HR and people management are not easy to get - I wouldn't be so quick to discount us......remember, you came to us......

Best of luck!

Arthur Beesley

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If there are, then whatever technology you are using to manage the call should show them.

Not really, if the person is in the same room as someone else on the call but hasn't logged in themselves.

Qualitymark

If the manager wants a one-to-one teleconference (which can, of course, be recorded), perhaps it would be a good idea to have your union representative there. The union rep can say things that you can't; you can stay back and let the two of them handle things, if you've briefed the rep beforehand.
What both you and your manager want is to work this out in a nice way. Having the union there will allow you to get things sorted without making yourself into a bad guy.

padser

DoomZ wrote: »

Many would see this medium as unacceptable medium for such a thing as a allegation of victimization.

Possibly, but it would appear from this thread at least that the vast majority don't.

Just out of interest, have you had many other "allegations of victimisation"?

Kai123

I can get where the OP is coming from, but its just something he has to accept. I have had deeply unfair managers before, and them having control is a massive part of it.

Best advice with this amount of info is to suck it up and do the audio chat. You have to go down the official line and if the manager doesn't want to deal with it, then you have more ammo.