Making things difficult for an employer

Professor Genius

A friend of mine works for one of the large IFSC financial sweat shops. He has been put under enormous pressure to meet deadlines that are unreasonable. He is extremely stressed with errors that are essentially down to staff shortages being laid at his door. Long story short he believes management are looking for a scapegoat and wants to put him on a PIP.

He is looking to now make things difficult for his employer so they will offer him reasonable redundancy (this has occurred for some others before but the company is slow to offer now due to cost cutting).

One idea he has is to request all data on him mentioned under GDPR. Will this include any and all emails that mention him - particularly any that would have discussed his performance by senior management?

Wanderer2010

Tell your friend to look for a different job with less stress and more reasonable deadlines where he will be happier rather than the extra stress of building up a case against his employer, which isn't going to work in his favour anyway because these big companies know how to cover their a%%. Doing this kind of crap, looking up laws, trying to stay one step ahead of a company that is willing to put such pressure on their workers, is only going to make him go slowly mad with the stress, is it worth it?

Life is short, tell him to move on for his own sanity.

dreamers75

Professor Genius wrote: »

A friend of mine works for one of the large IFSC financial sweat shops. He has been put under enormous pressure to meet deadlines that are unreasonable. He is extremely stressed with errors that are essentially down to staff shortages being laid at his door. Long story short he believes management are looking for a scapegoat and wants to put him on a PIP.

He is looking to now make things difficult for his employer so they will offer him reasonable redundancy (this has occurred for some others before but the company is slow to offer now due to cost cutting).

One idea he has is to request all data on him mentioned under GDPR. Will this include any and all emails that mention him - particularly any that would have discussed his performance by senior management?

Tell your mate to leave, just leave. Doing that will not end well for him.

As for the GDPR thing lol key part of those emails that mention him will be the @ part which they own. And I am 100% sure they have a GDPR policy and he agreed to it.

rd1izb7lvpuksx

dreamers75 wrote: »

Tell your mate to leave, just leave. Doing that will not end well for him.

As for the GDPR thing lol key part of those emails that mention him will be the @ part which they own. And I am 100% sure they have a GDPR policy and he agreed to it.

I agree that his friend should leave, especially as he is not likely to receive redundancy as long as the position exists, but you can't absolve yourself of your GDPR responsibilities contractually. If the company has discussed the friend via email in any respect, there is no lawful manner to refrain from providing those emails in a response to a DSAR.

Professor Genius

dreamers75 wrote: »

Tell your mate to leave, just leave. Doing that will not end well for him.

As for the GDPR thing lol key part of those emails that mention him will be the @ part which they own. And I am 100% sure they have a GDPR policy and he agreed to it.

If he is mentioned by name then there won’t be @ in the body of the email rather his name. My question is can he ask for all these emails under GDPR as he feels these will reveal a lot

dreamers75

Professor Genius wrote: »

If he is mentioned by name then there won’t be @ in the body of the email rather his name. My question is can he ask for all these emails under GDPR as he feels these will reveal a lot

Oh he is looking for emails about him.

He can ask for them but again its end of the line for him.

As to what would happen next he would be furnished with his HR file with any or none disciplinaries/training records/ contract status/emergency contact form.

I do not know the GDPR policy the company has but without legal consul, you aint getting those emails which most likely dont exist

IT dont just google internally his name and a load of stuff pops up.

Before he does this stupid thing he needs to read and understand what GDPR is and what is the company policy.

Johnny Sausage

"your friend" needs to grow up

just leave if you he isnt up to the job

Professor Genius

Johnny Sausage wrote: »

"your friend" needs to grow up

just leave if you he isnt up to the job

He wants to leave but not without the standard redundancy package which is approx 100k. So that’s his main consideration.

Positions get made redundant rather than people, he/she might receive a redundancy payment if the laid off because the position no longer is required/exists. Doesn’t sound like it’s a position being scrapped if he/she/you are really busy and staff numbers are short. By trying to force redundancy/making things difficult he/she/you may well be confirming to them what they want to show in a PIP.

_Brian

This sort of obstructive behaviour is likely to end in a discipline quicker than their bad performance.

Start looking for a new job ASAP when there is some chance of getting out with your mind intact, although given the line of query in the first post I’d fear things are on a slippery slope already.

I’ve seen employees, manufacturing not finance, drag their heels and make life difficult for management. Pretty much all of them were identified and successfully disciplined some even “managed out” in short space of time. Even co workers hate that sort of behaviour because it inevitably has blow back on them.

Just choose, either do your job or get a new job and move on.

Phoebas

Professor Genius wrote: »

He wants to leave but not without the standard redundancy package which is approx 100k. So that’s his main consideration.

So, this is a shakedown?

antix80

HR simply ignore gdpr requests and you have no way to obtain the real info they have on you. Hr management justify it by withholding info due to confidentiality of other employees or confidential business processes. They'll print a simple record about you, but you won't see anything about reports or investigations.

There'll be no mention of how your current pip relates to a company policy to reduce headcount while there's a freeze on offering redundancy.

seamus

While the employee is in employment, the company may be entitled to withhold or redact some of the more recent emails if they relate to internal processes or contain other information.

That is, if there's a discussion about his performance or, e.g. a question on whether to transfer him, they may be entitled to withhold that information from a GDPR request until a decision has been made.

As the man says above, your friend is also not going to uncover any illegal or nefarious activities. Anything in emails which has nothing to do with him, will be redacted from the SAR.

Anyway, as others say, your mate just needs to go find another job. If he makes things difficult now he's burning his bridges and the employer can make it difficult to find something else.

daheff

forget the GDPR data request. most of the incriminating stuff wont be written down.

life is too short to work for these companies.... tell your friend to move on asap.

Professor Genius

Phoebas wrote: »

So, this is a shakedown?

You could describe it as such I suppose.

seamus

Professor Genius wrote: »

You could describe it as such I suppose.

Your friend could have a problem then if they've been using the work computer to ask questions on forums, send emails to friends, use Whatsapp web or have otherwise been admitting via the internet to wanting to extort redundancy from their employer.

Professor Genius

seamus wrote: »

Your friend could have a problem then if they've been using the work computer to ask questions on forums, send emails to friends, use Whatsapp web or have otherwise been admitting via the internet to wanting to extort redundancy from their employer.

He earns over 100k per annum. He’s not a dope. Just been unfairly put in a difficult position and being set up as fall guy for issues emanating from excessive outsourcing.

Extorting is how you might see it. He’s looking to get what others have got. Essentially paid off to go quietly. It happens a lot more often that you’d think.

Jim2007

Vaughn Muscular Strawberry wrote: »

I agree that his friend should leave, especially as he is not likely to receive redundancy as long as the position exists, but you can't absolve yourself of your GDPR responsibilities contractually. If the company has discussed the friend via email in any respect, there is no lawful manner to refrain from providing those emails in a response to a DSAR.

Actually there is, you cannot obtain anything under the GDPR that would normally require a discovery order from the courts.

Jim2007

Professor Genius wrote: »

He earns over 100k per annum. He’s not a dope.

Well he may not be a dope, but he certainly is not very bright in the ways of the world... the financial services industry is a small world and trying to shakedown a company could end up ensuring he has a very difficult time in finding his next position.

I have not worked in the financial services sector in Dublin in over thirty years, but I have no problem in getting the low down on anyone from there that I'd consider employing. Dublin is such an key player that we all have colleagues in Dublin and if we can check up on someone from abroad, I expect it is much easier if you are local.

Just move on, is the best advice.

Telly

Professor Genius wrote: »

He wants to leave but not without the standard redundancy package which is approx 100k. So that’s his main consideration.

If they want to put him on a PIP there is 100% no chance of him getting redundancy!

rd1izb7lvpuksx

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually there is, you cannot obtain anything under the GDPR that would normally require a discovery order from the courts.

What makes you think that? Unless subject to legal privilege, any data held about you must be made available.

griffin100

Professor Genius wrote: »

If he is mentioned by name then there won’t be @ in the body of the email rather his name. My question is can he ask for all these emails under GDPR as he feels these will reveal a lot

He can make a data access request to his employer - https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/individuals/know-your-rights/right-access-information

It's a good way to p!ss off your employer though.

TheBoyConor

Professor Genius wrote: »

If he is mentioned by name then there won’t be @ in the body of the email rather his name. My question is can he ask for all these emails under GDPR as he feels these will reveal a lot

I can tell you, if it were the case that senior management were discussing the likes of engineering your friend's resignation or letting him go, they would not be so utterly stupid as to put it all down in emails. This would all be discussed verbally behind closed doors. No minutes or record. You'd be a complete fool to keep a paper trail of how you were plotting a constructive dismissal against an employee.

I think what is more likely is that your friend is in a delusion that there is some sort of grand conspiracy against him. Is your friend's surname Corr by any change?

Professor Genius

Professor Genius wrote: »

He earns over 100k per annum. He’s not a dope. Just been unfairly put in a difficult position and being set up as fall guy for issues emanating from excessive outsourcing.

Extorting is how you might see it. He’s looking to get what others have got. Essentially paid off to go quietly. It happens a lot more often that you’d think.

There is always the mature option of talking them and asking for redundancy in a polite professional manner and if they dose not work out looking for another job.

Jim2007

Vaughn Muscular Strawberry wrote: »

What makes you think that? Unless subject to legal privilege, any data held about you must be made available.

You are not obliged to provide any information that could later be used in a court case against your or form part of your defence. You can to use the GDPR to circumvent the laws of evidence, that is not it's purpose.

rd1izb7lvpuksx

Jim2007 wrote: »

You are not obliged to provide any information that could later be used in a court case against your or form part of your defence. You can to use the GDPR to circumvent the laws of evidence, that is not it's purpose.

What on Earth makes you believe that?

John_Rambo

I'd be disinclined to burn bridges with employers. It's a small country and I've stayed in (more or less) the same evolved space. I've found myself reconnecting with previous employers as a client and as overflow for when I'm inundated or need speciality work. (or work that I'm just not interested in doing)

Augme

Genuinely always amazed at how easily people are willing to be bent over by their employer. Embarrassing tbh.


If there is potentially 100k on the table he would be nuts to leave and simply go find another job. Out in the gdpr request and take it from there. Very likely nothing interesting will come of it but at least it sets a clear signal that he is not done lightweight mug who will easily back down.

odyssey06

I think your friend needs to get professional advice from a solicitor with experience in employment law and the concept of 'constructive dismissal' e.g. if they think they are being made a scapegoat \ setup to take the fall.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/constructive_dismissal.html

Strumms

Leave, take a small career break... refocus, re-energize and get back into a job working for a researched good responsible employer. An employer who facilitates a professional, caring, fair and competently managed organization.

Mic 1972

A highly paid job will normally carry a significant amount of stress, alternatively you can go for a smaller job and be happy with a 9-5 commitment and a lower salary. The higher up you go with your career the more dysfunctional and toxic the work environment becomes, big jobs are not for everyone

_Brian

Augme wrote: »

Genuinely always amazed at how easily people are willing to be bent over by their employer. Embarrassing tbh.


If there is potentially 100k on the table he would be nuts to leave and simply go find another job. Out in the gdpr request and take it from there. Very likely nothing interesting will come of it but at least it sets a clear signal that he is not done lightweight mug who will easily back down.

Nope, op will be seen as no1 priority to be managed out the door. they would have him on a pip within six months and out the door within another 12.
Guaranteed an employee with that attitude is leaving gaps in performance somewhere that a pip could be applied.

Mic 1972

Augme wrote: »

Genuinely always amazed at how easily people are willing to be bent over by their employer. Embarrassing tbh.
If there is potentially 100k on the table he would be nuts to leave and simply go find another job. Out in the gdpr request and take it from there. Very likely nothing interesting will come of it but at least it sets a clear signal that he is not done lightweight mug who will easily back down.

100K is the potential redundancy package, a company can use many ways to get rid of an employee, redundancy inst the only option and it also exposes to the risk of unfair dismissal. Waiting for a potential redundancy while going through strees can affect your mental health in the long term

It is very cheap to make someone redundant. Could be done with two months wages.
Unless they are on very high wages their wish to be made redundant could come through but they wouldn't be getting anywhere close to 100k.
If they aren't happy with the token amount they get paid then they have to fight in the labour court to argue they weren't made redundant fairly and have to give back whatever redundancy payment they were given in exchange for hopefully a bigger penalty on their former employer.
If they are made redundant on a small amount and challenge it then they can't sit around idly waiting for a big payout. They have to mitigate their loss and if they mitigate their loss then the amount their former employer is obliged to pay is reduced. The Labour Court aren't in the habit of paying exceptional damages. That is something that happens in other courts, not the Labour court.
Also there is a tax concern for being made redundant from another position a few years later.

Not that I've ever sought to be made redundant I've been through this to the bitter end so your Friend should get some sense and start looking elsewhere for work if they are not happy where they are now.

Augme

The PIP will need to be rock solid and and they will need very good proof. What the friend of the OP should do is start getting everything in emails from now on. Any meeting in person that hsppe, send a follow up email that outliens what was discussed and actions that were taken etc.

They should also start expressing in emails the lack of resources available how outline how that has shifted.

However, realistically the company won't be bothered spending a year managing him out of the company.

This is why not upping and leaving is so crucial. Organisations treat people like this because they know most people are too spineless and they will just leave themselves. If you stand up to then from the beginning and they realise you won't simply go quietly they will just pay you to leave. Whether it's the full terms or 2 months etc it is still better than nothing.

Never tuck your tail and run at the first opportunity in these situations.

Sticking it out and you end up with an employment gap and your employer who you supposedly left on good terms unwilling to give any sort of reference to the recruiting HR department severely limits re-employment options.

_Brian

Augme wrote: »

The PIP will need to be rock solid and and they will need very good proof. What the friend of the OP should do is start getting everything in emails from now on. Any meeting in person that hsppe, send a follow up email that outliens what was discussed and actions that were taken etc.

They should also start expressing in emails the lack of resources available how outline how that has shifted.

However, realistically the company won't be bothered spending a year managing him out of the company.

This is why not upping and leaving is so crucial. Organisations treat people like this because they know most people are too spineless and they will just leave themselves. If you stand up to then from the beginning and they realise you won't simply go quietly they will just pay you to leave. Whether it's the full terms or 2 months etc it is still better than nothing.

Never tuck your tail and run at the first opportunity in these situations.

I think you underestimate the planning that goes into managing an employee out of a company. A year wouldn’t be unusual, I’ve seen it take three.

When senior managers get their teeth into the notion of managing an employee out there is no time limit on their vengeance, I’ve seen it and indeed I’ve been instructed to implement it on occasions.

The bigger the dick the employee makes of themselves the more people get behind the push.

If HR, an immediate supervisor and more senior managers desire it then it’s all but guaranteed to happen. And as it happens the employee will be on at least one PIP and likely missing pay rises and bonuses.

OP needs a new job and to move the focus of their life onto something positive and not this petty attempt to manipulate a payoff