A Royal stitch up

[Mr Mancini]

We've got an update on this case.

[Big Daz]

I was charged by RM 7 years ago with B and H and had a area rep from a different function do my case whilst the area del rep did the person making the accusation.

[Big Daz]

We've got an update on this case.
Apparently the manager who did the initial investigation, the one who took the notes and the one who deliberately left out crucial information from the notes ( the fact that the quadrant guy fist alleged the postman who had had a heart attack of bullying that had been going back for ages) had personally put in a bullying and harassment claim against this rep about a year and a half ago. This bullying and harassment case that was put in a year and a half ago was investigated and thrown out as "no case to answer". Apparently the rep was accused of rumour mongering (spreading malicious rumours) by this manager.
So what we have is a manager who has tried to have the rep sacked once before but failed and this time has managed it my manipulating note taking and withholding evidence from the accused rep and also by disallowing the accused reps area rep from attending the meetings.
I wonder if this piece of information will be useful at an appeal.

Yes and no

But yes for a employment tribunal, this case would make RM look very dodgy if goes to tribunal

[Mr Mancini]

One more thing. The reps 2 year serious for the argument with the black guy was issued right in the middle of the 2007 strikes (the black guy didn't strike). The rep went out on all these strikes and was quite a visible supporter of them. It seems strange to us the timing of it.
The rep was issued a 2 year serious in 2007, then when he returned to work was suspended again for rumour mondering, and then when the 2009 striked were announced the rep was sacked. All with the use of the bullying and harassment proceedure.
In our office there is banter that goes every day, often by management, and we can find nothing in the reps behavour that warrants this kind of punishment.

[norbert]

[quote="Mr Mancini"]One more thing. The reps 2 year serious for the argument with the black guy was issued right in the middle of the 2007 strikes (the black guy didn't strike).

The Black Guy bit is " interesting " , it all goes back to the Jermaine Lee suicide & the Harlow IT case and RM being threatened with investigation by both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission ( a fair percentage of upheld complaints were against RM managers hassling female staff ) . So RM went on this " holier than thou " route which is 6th form Industrial Relations .

When anything can be deemed as a hot potato , the informal response from RM managers about more senior managers is usually " He had to wriggle out of it " , which usually means twisting things round , sometimes on it's head .

The Senior Manager will have set RM questions that require the " right " RM answers . From what many people have seen of RM paperwork is that they obviously sound very abrupt , oblique , vague and obscure and are riddled with contradictions , holes and beg more questions than answers . One Junior manager admitted that any self respecting solicitor would bin some RM reports / paperwork in five minutes flat as everything is laid on far too thick .

There is also a lot of pressure from Personnel . Their job is to uphold policy . It's all this Emperor's new clothes stuff , everything is purely to impress and to a foregone conclusion . Some AMAL's firmly believe CofC is corrupt and abused to settle petty vendettas and to go on a " " moral " crusade " .

It's also interesting that certain " militant " or well organised areas have more than their fair share of rep victimisation stories that seem to have the same ring to them . Unfair detriment for legitimate TU activity is a Employment Law offence .

What you'd have to argue is that on the bounds of probability , this is beyond the realms of coincidence . What RM do is couch things in vague terms to cover for this or try and vainly pull the stops out . Their weaknesses are is being too judgemental and everything is too black and white . Their arrogance is also their Achilles Heel but there's more than one way of skinning a cat .

There is a plant on the fluffy forum that has stated that even though RM have lost tribunals , the member of staff was guilty of something - so that's all right then and admits RM managers can't go against each other , and even if a case is contentious the minimum punishment is action short of dismissal . I'd call it union busting and there's a vindictive , " we'll get you next time " element to it .

[NWpostie]

Looks like a shaky case by RM, as usual they jump over procedures to get their man, this is RM's achilles heel, time after time they repeat the mistakes previous managers have done, which can be used against RM in a Tribunal.

In the meantime, boycott the Quadrant services., 100%. make your own Coffee and Sandwiches, pool your resources if you have to, refuse to communicate with the quadrant guy, do not acknowledge him whatsoever, do not in any circumstances assist him in anything he needs to do his job, if you Van happens to be in the way, so be it, have your breaks and do not budge until its your time to move etc.

[Mr Mancini]

Quadrant guys creeping around the office looking for friends at the moment but some managers love him.

[Mr Mancini]

It has come to light that our rep is one of the most successful performers in his department