Verbal Warning.. What do you think?

killyourtv_

So yesterday my manager and assistant manager pulled me into the office for a "chat" which turned out to be a verbal warning. I don't agree with the verbal warning and wanted to gather some second opinions before I bring my opinions to her when I'm back on Monday.

So I work in a creche and before work I bumped into a parent in a local cafe, we had a casual talk and went our separate ways. In the conversation to the parent I used the phrase "sh**ting it" but quickly apologised. I told a co-worker (because I was mortified) who then told my manager, which lead to the meeting and the verbal warning.

My problem with this is that it wasn't on work premises, wasn't on work hours, I wasn't in my uniform and he didn't have the children with him.. merely a private conversation in a local cafe.

I apologised for my language but my manager deemed it "unladylike" and "not the language she uses" which seemed to her as grounds for a verbal warning.

What do you think?

duffman13

killyourtv_ wrote: »

So yesterday my manager and assistant manager pulled me into the office for a "chat" which turned out to be a verbal warning. I don't agree with the verbal warning and wanted to gather some second opinions before I bring my opinions to her when I'm back on Monday.

So I work in a creche and before work I bumped into a parent in a local cafe, we had a casual talk and went our separate ways. In the conversation to the parent I used the phrase "sh**ting it" but quickly apologised. I told a co-worker (because I was mortified) who then told my manager, which lead to the meeting and the verbal warning.

My problem with this is that it wasn't on work premises, wasn't on work hours, I wasn't in my uniform and he didn't have the children with him.. merely a private conversation in a local cafe.

I apologised for my language but my manager deemed it "unladylike" and "not the language she uses" which seemed to her as grounds for a verbal warning.

What do you think?

Where you given any warning about the meeting or an opportunity to bring a witness? Seems a bit crazy if they just hauled you in the office, you'd need to check the terms of your employment in relation to the validity of your "offence" but from your post it seems they haven't follow the correct process in issuing a warning.

bonyn

It mightnt have been a work issue, but by telling your colleague it became one.
Try to keep your work life and your personal life separate.
At least you learned something about your workmate.
For what its worth, it's not like verbal warnings go on your reference letter.

lab man

I'd have called the work ate out and denied everything they would hardly have asked the parent about the conversation seeing twas private

punisher5112

Absolute rubbish op.

You didn't say it to a child or call the parent a bad word.

I say sh1t and feck all the time.

If you have to consider speaking with a Solicitor.

Don't worry have a good weekend.

Mrs OBumble

The parent is still a customer - whether it was on work time or in the work environment is irrelevant. Most jobs have a clause that requires you not to bring the employer into disrepute, and you could be seen to have done with by your be your behaviour in this case. Like it on not, when you work with children your behaviour in public places is potentially going to be seen by parents and/or children who you hare responsible for.

Your employer obviously has a particular view of what is appropriate in terms of language when speaking to customers. It may not be the same as other sectors. But the fact that you apologised to the parent, and told your colleague about it, makes it pretty clear that you understood this.

The process that was followed isn't best-practise: normally there would be an investigation, management would consider the results and then have a 2nd meeting where the sanction (in this case warning) was given. But maybe the disciplinary process in your workplace don't say there has to be a separate investigation and follow-up meetings: it's not legally required.

Right now, you have a choice: appeal the warning, make a fuss about it, get a solicitor etc. Even if you win the battle (warning is removed from your file), it's likely you'll lose the war (employer never trusts you again, no prospects of promotion, etc).

Personally I would spend the next six months proving yourself to be a model employee, and it's likely that the whole thing will be forgotten.

Arcade_Tryer

killyourtv_ wrote: »

I apologised for my language but my manager deemed it "unladylike" and "not the language she uses" which seemed to her as grounds for a verbal warning.

What do you think?

About the part in bold? I doubt I could say without probably being banned from the forum.

In general, while it might be harsh, Mrs O'Bumble above has a point in that you went someway to admitting culpability by your actions in divulging what happened to your colleague. They were a bit of a prick to tell your boss but what's done is done. Apologise and move on is probably best. And fine a different job if you don't want those kind of dictatorial idiots controlling what you say and are allowed to say when not in work.

Clampdown

Why did you tell your colleague? Had you any idea she would run and tell your supervisor?

I don't see how using a small bit of mildly foul language in a cafe could be bringing the employer inyo disrepute at all, unless you were talking about something that was happening at your workplace or referencing work colleagues or work practices. Just because you use that language outside of work does not mean you would use it around children under your care, and your employer is under no obligation to monitor your language outside work. I'd say she just decided that since they had an excuse, they would 'have a word with you', because some people get a kick out of their little bit of power and will take any opportunity to flex their 'manager muscles'. Or maybe your colleague had been reprimanded for something recently and she felt that she had to take action or it would look like favoritism. Bewildered as to why you revealed it to that colleague as they don't seem to have your best interests at heart.

Anyway, a verbal warning is nothing, really. You didn't deserve it but god knows many people get crap they don't deserve from power tripping managers in workplaces in Ireland, the slightest hint of authority seems to go to people's head in this country big time. All you can do is try to forget about it.

Thoie

Let it go. Don't get cross or petty with the work mate, just make sure not to trust her with anything private again.

In most places things go

Verbal warning - "don't do it again"
You do it again.
First written warning - "we're really saying this is something you shouldn't be doing - don't even think of doing it again"
You didn't learn and do it again.
Second written warning/big black mark/firing/investigation (depending on the situation).

You don't appear to use bad language regularly, you don't spend your time hanging out with parents outside of work. By all means ask to see the general policy on "warnings" at some stage (you should have been told what the steps are for your workplace when you started - possibly in an employee handbook if the place is big enough for one).

If "swearing" (even mild swearing) is not a habit of yours in general, forget about it and move on. If you do have a tendency to swear, try and watch yourself so they have no excuse to move to the next step.

Hellrun

Just ignore it, that's what I would do. Don't trust this co-worker anymore.

Eoin

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The process that was followed isn't best-practise: normally there would be an investigation, management would consider the results and then have a 2nd meeting where the sanction (in this case warning) was given. But maybe the disciplinary process in your workplace don't say there has to be a separate investigation and follow-up meetings: it's not legally required.

The best practice is all but legally binding. If an employer does not follow it, it is nearly guaranteed they will be ruled against. I know it sounds like a grey area as it's not specifically stated in any legislation, but it's as close as can be.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Right now, you have a choice: appeal the warning, make a fuss about it, get a solicitor etc. Even if you win the battle (warning is removed from your file), it's likely you'll lose the war (employer never trusts you again, no prospects of promotion, etc).

Totally agree with this though. But there is a very good chance that the employer is ignorant of correct processes to follow; I am sure a creche manager is already drowning in red tape as it is. There might be a softer way to say that the process was not fair than quoting work place relation best practices.

I think I would take the reason for the warning on the chin - it's clearly something the boss doesn't like, so it doesn't sound like an argument you will win. But perhaps you can follow up and ask exactly what that warning means with regards to your file etc and take it from there.

Renegade Mechanic

killyourtv_ wrote: »

I told a co-worker (because I was mortified) who then told my manager, which lead to the meeting and the verbal warning.

See that bit there?
Never, ever, ever trust that co-worker of yours with anything more than morning small talk.
That's some one who hate you, and who'll cost you your job if you give them half a chance.

Hologram

I would look for another job. Weird colleague and weird reason for a verbal warning. I would understand a quick chat about the importance of keeping up professional appearances when interacting with a client no matter when or what the circumstances, but a verbal warning when it occurred outside work and when it was based on someone telling tales... does not seem right at all.

lenihankevin

Maybe it's just me but has the world gone mad where someone can get a verbal warning for chatting to someone outside working hours and swearing a little...it's nuts! I feel for you op to work in such a job. Sounds like ur co-worker is a lovely person! Suppose all u can do is keep the head down and work away.

northgirl

Whatever happens, document everything to date. Even the most trivial of things may come in useful down the line.

Mrs OBumble

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

See that bit there?
Never, ever, ever trust that co-worker of yours with anything more than morning small talk.
That's some one who hate you, and who'll cost you your job if you give them half a chance.

Indeed.

Every workplace has someone like that.

It's good to know who they are - and to remember that you can use them to communicate things to the manager that you don't want to say directly. Choose your words carefully.

Stealthfins

Nothing worse than working with a lurk or mucher.
There's one in my place,he'd hang all around him even hung his own uncle out to dry.
Runs with tails to management and adds on more for extra effect.

Like the previous poster said,only have small talk and keep personal chat to a minimum.
Don't even tell them your weekend plans.

These lurks and muchers are very charming and nice when they need their news.

They usually get found out eventually.

denismc

Did they say how long the warning will be on your record? As I understand it the warning doesn't stay on your record indefinitely, a bit like penalty points.

Eoin

If it is an official warning, then due process was not followed, and it's pretty much invalid.

But as I said, there's a good chance that the manager does not know employment law very well, and probably just used it as more of a firm way to say what's acceptable behaviour rather than an official record against the employment record. That's why I recommended that the OP finds out what the warning means as far as the boss is concerned.

seamus

Eoin wrote: »

If it is an official warning, then due process was not followed, and it's pretty much invalid.

I'm not sure if that's the case. Any company I've known who operate a disciplinary process always format the first verbal warning as an informal discussion, clearly stated to be a verbal warning; no right to appeal or have any witnesses.
Only written warnings later in the process ever include witnesses and appeals.

Since there is no provision for disciplinary processes in law, companies are pretty much free to define their own due process.

In this case though, if the manager did use the word, "unladylike", then you have grounds to claim discrimination in the event that it becomes something more serious.

But at a more realistic level, yeah avoid telling that co-worker anything, be civil and pleasant with them, but don't discuss non-work matters with them beyond the necessary. If you tell them you're tired because you were at a wedding at the weekend, she'll be in telling your boss you're hungover at work.

Eoin

As I said earlier, it might not be specifically included in legislation, but any disciplinary procedures that do not follow the principles of natural justice are incredibly likely to be found unfair if it gets to court.

Shint0

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

See that bit there?
Never, ever, ever trust that co-worker of yours with anything more than morning small talk.
That's some one who hate you, and who'll cost you your job if you give them half a chance.

Correct a thousand times over.

Know the signs to watch out for. You might appear to have a lot in common personally and in terms of aptitude but you might have the edge over them in a few areas. These colleagues are usually sycophants trying to deflect from their own shortcomings and will not hesitate to put the spotlight on you while looking for a promotion or some other self-serving reason. If you observe closely they will rarely divulge anything personal about themselves in the workplace but will try to lure you into revealing personal information about yourself which can be used later against you. Don't fall for the bait.

Always start from the starting point that every work colleague has an agenda regardless of whether they do or don't because at some point most probably will. Keep it civil and professional with that colleague, OP, because if you try to avoid them that could be used against you too.

Cienciano

For future reference, if you're ever called up about a conversation between yourself and someone else, just deny you ever said it. It's your word against theirs, so management won't do anything.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The parent is still a customer - whether it was on work time or in the work environment is irrelevant. Most jobs have a clause that requires you not to bring the employer into disrepute, and you could be seen to have done with by your be your behaviour in this case. Like it on not, when you work with children your behaviour in public places is potentially going to be seen by parents and/or children who you hare responsible for.

Your employer obviously has a particular view of what is appropriate in terms of language when speaking to customers. It may not be the same as other sectors. But the fact that you apologised to the parent, and told your colleague about it, makes it pretty clear that you understood this.

The process that was followed isn't best-practise: normally there would be an investigation, management would consider the results and then have a 2nd meeting where the sanction (in this case warning) was given. But maybe the disciplinary process in your workplace don't say there has to be a separate investigation and follow-up meetings: it's not legally required.

Right now, you have a choice: appeal the warning, make a fuss about it, get a solicitor etc. Even if you win the battle (warning is removed from your file), it's likely you'll lose the war (employer never trusts you again, no prospects of promotion, etc).

Personally I would spend the next six months proving yourself to be a model employee, and it's likely that the whole thing will be forgotten.

I'd disagree with pretty much all that. If the OP was in the local pub and was a bit merry, and a parent saw her and had no problem with the carer getting sacked or written warning? You don't work for the company 24 hours a day, as long as you're professional in the job or when speaking on behalf of the company that's it. Private time is just that, private time.

Fleawuss

seamus wrote: »

Since there is no provision for disciplinary processes in law, companies are pretty much free to define their own due process.

I don't know what jurisdiction you are basing this assertion on but it is fundamentally flawed. I do mean fundamentally. The precise process of a disciplinary process may not be specified in statute in the ROI but it is fundamental to any process here that imposes sanctions that it conform to natural law.

There must be fair procedures, you must know what you are accused of, you must be allowed to defend yourself and no one can act as a judge in their own case. No company has the freedom to define their own due process contrary to those fundamental tenets.

Any company in the ROI that tried to create disciplinary processes contrary to these would lose in the High Court in jig time.

seamus

Fleawuss wrote: »

I don't know what jurisdiction you are basing this assertion on but it is fundamentally flawed. I do mean fundamentally. The precise process of a disciplinary process may not be specified in statute in the ROI but it is fundamental to any process here that imposes sanctions that it conform to natural law.

There must be fair procedures, you must know what you are accused of, you must be allowed to defend yourself and no one can act as a judge in their own case. No company has the freedom to define their own due process contrary to those fundamental tenets.

Any company in the ROI that tried to create disciplinary processes contrary to these would lose in the High Court in jig time.

Citation needed.

Mrs OBumble

Cienciano wrote: »

You don't work for the company 24 hours a day, as long as you're professional in the job or when speaking on behalf of the company that's it. Private time is just that, private time.

You don't work for the company 24 hours a day.

But you are an employee 24 hours a day. Many companies and organisations place restrictions on behaviour in your private time (eg soliders cannot even join political parties or attend political meetings, public servants need to take leave from their jobs if they want to even run for office).

Many teachers choose not to go out in the neighbourhood that they teach in, for just the sort of reason that you suggested.


I agree that the OP's employer sounds a bit OTT about it. But the OP understood what was required, and agreed to work there regardless. And I can understand the employer's perspective, too: many parent would not want to leave their precious small children in the company of someone who swears.

I don't agree that it's the basis of a discrimination claim either: if the OP was male, the phrase would have been ungentlemanly.

Fleawuss

seamus wrote: »

Citation needed.

Really? Given the seriousness of the area and the likelihood of legal challenge arising in work related discipline disputes I would have thought contributors here would fall into two categories: those looking for some guidance and those with some knowledge to share.

Google will supply you with exactly the same links it did for me. Anyway:

http://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/McfgFiles/knowledge/5579-Fair%20Procedures%20in%20Disciplinary%20Investigations.pdf
The key principles at the back will help you out.

A slightly more complex read:
https://www.iodireland.ie/sites/default/files/documents/IoD%20Factsheet%20-%20Internal%20Investigations%20Tips%20and%20Traps.pdf

And a neat summary:
https://www.legal-island.ie/articles/ire/features/hr/2015/nov/the-importance-of-fair-procedures-in-disciplinaries/

I just copied and pasted some key ideas from the above for you below:

The Rules of Natural Justice

The procedure you implement should follow the rules of natural justice – follow the procedures! Employers who commence disciplinary proceedings against their employees must ensure that they follow the rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice require:

An employee is made fully aware of any formal allegation made against them
They are afforded the opportunity to reply to any formal allegation made against them
They are afforded the right to representation throughout the disciplinary process
They receive the right to a full and objective investigation of the allegation
They receive the right of appeal

So, to deal with your post again: it is very bad advice and you should edit it with a link to some of the above documents.

seamus

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

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.

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.

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.

_Brian

I've never seen warnings etc taken from an employee file.
When I take over new employees i often flick back through files when I have them out and see what their history is like. I know other managers who do the same.

Eoin

That's if the manager has actually maintained a record of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the manager just thinks the verbal warning was just a case of needing to be stern to get the point across (no matter what you think of the point in the first place), rather than the first step in a process.

Fleawuss

killyourtv_ wrote: »

So yesterday my manager and assistant manager pulled me into the office for a "chat" which turned out to be a verbal warning. I don't agree with the verbal warning and wanted to gather some second opinions before I bring my opinions to her when I'm back on Monday.

So I work in a creche and before work I bumped into a parent in a local cafe, we had a casual talk and went our separate ways. In the conversation to the parent I used the phrase "sh**ting it" but quickly apologised. I told a co-worker (because I was mortified) who then told my manager, which lead to the meeting and the verbal warning.

My problem with this is that it wasn't on work premises, wasn't on work hours, I wasn't in my uniform and he didn't have the children with him.. merely a private conversation in a local cafe.

I apologised for my language but my manager deemed it "unladylike" and "not the language she uses" which seemed to her as grounds for a verbal warning.

What do you think?

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.

There may well be a case to be made that you were in a private capacity when you spoke to the parent: that might be a more complicated area to contest eg were you wearing a uniform, had you a name badge visible etc etc. The more useful thing for you to learn is to act as a paid employee (aka professional) when dealing with anyone connected with the creche.

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: