Advive on Harassment charge.

[La Poste]

Hello all.
If I am being interviewed about an allegation of bullying and harassment is the manager interviewing me allowed to question me on my previous record, I am under a 2 year serious and the manager started to say "why are you under a 2 year serious? what was the reason?"
This current charge against me is completely unrelated to the charge that earned me the warning. The charge that earned me the warning involved a completely different individual
Do I have a case for a grievence against this manager?
Is the manager in breach of the conduct code?
BTW I am not a bully

[Pat Ostman]

How did he find out, did you tell him?

[andy2007]

He'll have just checked the records.

[La Poste]

He must have checked.

[norbert]

He must have checked. It's common knowledge in my office that this is what he's going to use to shaft me.
I just wonder if I can use this point at an appeal.

RM will have to be very careful if they go on a " guilty by association " basis , might work on Planet RM but a Industrial Tribunal Chairman might not be impressed due to a lack of natural justice .

Been there elsewhere - one tactic was the blank file . Adverse inferences could be drawn about the strikes , it's unfair detriment for legitimate trade union activity . Yes you can draw conclusions based on coincidences but it works both ways .

[La Poste]

Been there elsewhere - one tactic was the blank file . Adverse inferences could be drawn about the strikes , it's unfair detriment for legitimate trade union activity . Yes you can draw conclusions based on coincidences but it works both ways .

Thanks for the reply however I am finding it a little hard to understand this statement, could you please explain it to me?
Thanks.

[norbert]

Been there elsewhere - one tactic was the blank file . Adverse inferences could be drawn about the strikes , it's unfair detriment for legitimate trade union activity . Yes you can draw conclusions based on coincidences but it works both ways .

Thanks for the reply however I am finding it a little hard to understand this statement, could you please explain it to me?
Thanks.

What they did if they suspected you of something but had no chance of proving it - they'd say it would stay on file or go in a blank file till the next time they had you in the office . All willy waving & sour grapes . Some were openly hostile and vindictive , it was all to soften people up and knock the stuffing out of them for privatization .

You could say to a Tribunal that it was beyond the realms of coincidence that you were one of the few people that striked , the strike was completely legal but you feel you are being singled out as certain managers would have had a problem with it . You can then lay a charge of unfair detriment for trade union activity .

RM will probably couch it in vague or obscure language saying " So & So takes it on himself to get involved in matters that are not his concern " , has a attitude problem " etc . In English it means somebody has been in the union room too many times and is a pain in the arse . If they come out with that sort of rubbish , you use it to prove unfair detriment .

Everything RM managers do is purely to impress a more Senior Manager . Everything is also based on questions which require the right RM answers .

That's what I mean about coincidences working both ways , i.e. RM saying to you " You're on a warning so you're bound to be guilty as you've been " naughty " before " . By saying you feel you've been singled out for striking , you're playing RM at their own game / calling their bluff .

Tribunals can work on " adverse inferences " being drawn - hinting at something fishy and the panel being more inclined to believe you than RM . Where RM go wrong is that everything is in Black & White and they can sound too judgmental - in a Tribunal the grey bits in the middle have to come out .

Hope that helps - a lot of RM CofC stuff shouldn't really get as far as a Industrial Tribunal but ......................

[La Poste]

Mine will, they pulled a dirty stroke on Friday (got the minutes yesterday), they have added bits to the interview that I never said to paint the picture in their own colours.
I was with a rep at the time and he does not remember me saying these things it is two managers words against mine and a rep.
I am considering putting in a grievance tomorrow on this matter, as far as RM conduct code goes this grievance will have to be looked at before they can commence with the case, I am not 100% sure on this point though.
Thanks for the advice mate you are really helping me.

[norbert]

Mine will, they pulled a dirty stroke on Friday (got the minutes yesterday), they have added bits to the interview that I never said to paint the picture in their own colours.
I was with a rep at the time and he does not remember me saying these things it is two managers words against mine and a rep.
I am considering putting in a grievance tomorrow on this matter, as far as RM conduct code goes this grievance will have to be looked at before they can commence with the case, I am not 100% sure on this point though.
Thanks for the advice mate you are really helping me.

if there's minutes - challenge them , and it has to be made known that there was a challenge - shady

[La Poste]

I'm getting a letter signed for by the rep who sat next to me in the interview stating he never heard these comments being made.
All this including possibly a grievance form will be going in to management.

[Destroyer]

In my office a Grievance form isnt worth what its written on.