Burslem Depot Problems

[CoachingMonkey]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/ne ... ticle.html

Not sure what to think about this long-running story. Despite the protestations of the Union, there are, sadly, a number of bullies within the union - some of which hold important positions in said union.

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

Anyway, I have to say the right decision was made to sack those people at Burslem Depot. Bullying should have no place in any Royal Mail building - and the union, instead of trying to hide bullying and harrassment issues, should take a good look at themselves and take B&H seriously. When their own members and reps are involved, their policy becomes rather ambiguous.

[fishtank]

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

You don't say what the relevance of their union membership was.
Were they union officials?...Did they abuse their position? Does the fact that at least one was a union member have any relevance at all?

[Happy Keyer]

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

Anyway, I have to say the right decision was made to sack those people at Burslem Depot. Bullying should have no place in any Royal Mail building - and the union, instead of trying to hide bullying and harrassment issues, should take a good look at themselves and take B&H seriously. When their own members and reps are involved, their policy becomes rather ambiguous.

In an ideal world all complaints are genuine. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case in the real world. Must be a couple of years ago in Stoke someone got dismissed for bullying. Only thing is the person who was supposedly bullied admitted to a few people (including me) that they were never bothered by the incidents they complained about - therefore they weren't bullied. They freely came out and said they just wanted to get this person into trouble, and hopefully sacked. Just goes to show you...

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

Anyway, I have to say the right decision was made to sack those people at Burslem Depot. Bullying should have no place in any Royal Mail building - and the union, instead of trying to hide bullying and harrassment issues, should take a good look at themselves and take B&H seriously. When their own members and reps are involved, their policy becomes rather ambiguous.

In an ideal world all complaints are genuine. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case in the real world. Must be a couple of years ago in Stoke someone got dismissed for bullying. Only thing is the person who was supposedly bullied admitted to a few people (including me) that they were never bothered by the incidents they complained about - therefore they weren't bullied. They freely came out and said they just wanted to get this person into trouble, and hopefully sacked. Just goes to show you...

Burslem is in stoke isn't it. The tribunal in essence was about unfair sackings The claim being that RM used an unreliable witness whose evidence allegedly had inconsistencies

Where you called as a material witness

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/ne ... ticle.html

Not sure what to think about this long-running story.

Are you sure you certainly come down on one side further on in your post.

Anyway, I have to say the right decision was made to sack those people at Burslem Depot.

Bullying should have no place in any Royal Mail building - and the union, instead of trying to hide bullying and harrassment issues, should take a good look at themselves and take B&H seriously.

I agree that Bullying has no place in Royal Mail or the CWU, and in fact even though I am a strong supporter of the Union at local level, some members dislike me talking to a strike breaker, but they don't bully me or them, we have different opinions and we respect that in each other.

As to the CWU trying to hide bullying I not sure where you are coming from on that subject. Is it your assertion that the CWU representing alleged bullies is them attempting to "hide bullying and harassment", or something else. I would appreciate some clarification on this, just so that we can move the debate on.

When their own members and reps are involved, their policy becomes rather ambiguous.

Some would say the same for Royal Mail, in fact members post that claim rather regularly on RMC. However, if you have a B&H complaint against a rep all you have to do is report it to your Manager and they will investigate it. There is a separate section for dealing with Union Reps in the Conduct Agreement and it involves the GS as soon as it becomes a formal process. Hardly hiding it. The agreement between RM & the CWU allows for the issue to be resolved informally perhaps you have mistaken this process for an attempt to "hide" any B&H by CWU reps.

I must state however that B&H by anyone irrespective of their position, rank or affiliation is completely unacceptable and all instances or claims should be investigated fairly and fully within a process that is robust and just. If the process is too weak no complaints are made, if its too autocratic or biased then rouge managers or reps can use it to remove "obstacles", it is a hard balance to get right which is why B&H procedures should be continually reviewed.

[Happy Keyer]

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

Anyway, I have to say the right decision was made to sack those people at Burslem Depot. Bullying should have no place in any Royal Mail building - and the union, instead of trying to hide bullying and harrassment issues, should take a good look at themselves and take B&H seriously. When their own members and reps are involved, their policy becomes rather ambiguous.

In an ideal world all complaints are genuine. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case in the real world. Must be a couple of years ago in Stoke someone got dismissed for bullying. Only thing is the person who was supposedly bullied admitted to a few people (including me) that they were never bothered by the incidents they complained about - therefore they weren't bullied. They freely came out and said they just wanted to get this person into trouble, and hopefully sacked. Just goes to show you...

Burslem is in stoke isn't it. The tribunal in essence was about unfair sackings The claim being that RM used an unreliable witness whose evidence allegedly had inconsistencies

Where you called as a material witness

Sorry, should mention the case in question took place at Stoke MDEC where I work. No I wasn't, I wasn't familiar with the actual case itself. I just know that both prior to the complaint and since the dismissal the complainant has admitted to just wanting to get the other party sacked, and was never actually bothered by what they were alleged to have done. I also believe this point was raised with local management and not acted on as it seems they got the result they wanted as well. I also know that friends of the dismissed were regularly pulled over for a couple of months to do with confidentiality on the case. I never thought about it then but later it just struck me as paranoia as I sit near one and never heard the case discussed, in hindsight management made it look like they had something to hide.
Irony is this individual was, if I've been told right, nothing to do with the union. They were, however, openly critical of "unprofessional behaviour" / incompetence of managers, I'd heard them slating one for being "bone idle" as they put it. Someone did say though that the dismissed party was seen working at Stockport MDEC a few months later, but I don't know how true this is. This is exactly the sort of behaviour by both complainants and managers that undermines any complaints of bullying.

[CoachingMonkey]

The story reminds me a little of an incident at my workplace - involving a member of the union (with 3 or 4 others) who bullied and harrassed a member of staff for no reason. A couple of them also had conduct warnings for bullying and harassment in a totally separate case. Seems some bullies just have it in their nature.

You don't say what the relevance of their union membership was.
Were they union officials?...Did they abuse their position? Does the fact that at least one was a union member have any relevance at all?

One was a rep, I believe.

[CoachingMonkey]

In an ideal world all complaints are genuine. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case in the real world. Must be a couple of years ago in Stoke someone got dismissed for bullying. Only thing is the person who was supposedly bullied admitted to a few people (including me) that they were never bothered by the incidents they complained about - therefore they weren't bullied. They freely came out and said they just wanted to get this person into trouble, and hopefully sacked. Just goes to show you...

I don't know, Happy Keyer, just because someone claims they weren't bothered by the bullying, doesn't mean bullying didn't occur. That is not the line the union would take, or at least, I hope it wouldn't.

[CoachingMonkey]

As to the CWU trying to hide bullying I not sure where you are coming from on that subject. Is it your assertion that the CWU representing alleged bullies is them attempting to "hide bullying and harassment", or something else.

No, not at all. The union has a duty to represent alleged bullies. It was more of an incident of a rep being protected by a more senior rep on the grounds that the bullying was "mild mickey taking". From some of the details I heard, it certainly wasn't "mild mickey taking".

I realise the union has a duty to protect and represent its own members and officials, but obviously, it is important that B&H issues are taken seriously and without prejudice.

On the issue of Burslem, it is important to to remember that a hearing revealed that there were others (apart from the woman at the centre of the case) who the four were accused of bullying.

[Happy Keyer]

In an ideal world all complaints are genuine. Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case in the real world. Must be a couple of years ago in Stoke someone got dismissed for bullying. Only thing is the person who was supposedly bullied admitted to a few people (including me) that they were never bothered by the incidents they complained about - therefore they weren't bullied. They freely came out and said they just wanted to get this person into trouble, and hopefully sacked. Just goes to show you...

I don't know, Happy Keyer, just because someone claims they weren't bothered by the bullying, doesn't mean bullying didn't occur. That is not the line the union would take, or at least, I hope it wouldn't.

RMs definition of workplace bullying is "Workplace bullying is intimidation, whether on a regular and persistent basis or as a one-off, which undermines the competence, effectiveness, confidence and integrity of the person on the receiving end. The bully misuses their power, position or knowledge to criticise, humiliate and destroy a subordinate, a colleague or even their own boss." For someone to admit what was taking place did not bother them potentially means they weren't in fact being bullied, because the incidents didn't undermine their competence, effectiveness etc..., not that the alleged incidents didn't take place. Given that the person allegedly being bullied admitted in front of me and others that they wanted get someone sacked suggests that it is they who might have really been the bully, and that their complaint was potentially in bad faith.

[PLSludge]

Happy Keyer, it is important to note you used the word "potentially" in your last paragraph.

I don't know anything about the cases mentioned here, but I would have thought the RM management would have looked at the evidence before launching any further procedures.

I don't think any company can sack someone for no reason. Or can they?

[Happy Keyer]

Legally, I very much doubt it.

However, if a company wants to sack someone they will, they've just got to find something AND hope the person they're sacking goes away quietly.

I know from experience and talking to friends that non-unionised companies round here like call centres and warehouses do sack people at the drop of a hat and get away with it. Half the time they don't even have hearings, it's just a case of pick up your stuff and leave. I'm pretty sure this isn't legal?

[johno47]

I work at Burslem and would never put up with anyone bullying anyone, i dont agree with it and never would, but lets get this straight, there was NO BULLYING, this was a management set up to remove the union from our office, they suspended 12 origionaly, 6 were let back only 3 of the 12 were reps, management took the complainant in secret before they sacked anyone to a hotel, she was told to make notes at union meetings, 2 of the sacked were sacked for swearing at meetings because she said it offended her, even though on the day of one incident was supposed to have happened, one of the people was on holiday and wasnt there, 1 was sacked because she got his name mixed up with someone else, the person she was actualy complaining about has since left RM, she said one rep swore at her, an independant witness said that he didnt, the whole office was interviewed and were not asked about any specific incident involving the complainant, we were all asked the same generalised questions, about the office, do you honestly think an entire office would go on strike for 5 weeks if the allegations were true. We are not a militant office, we believe in people being treated fairly, the reps in Burslem are some of the most decent and honst people you could ever wish to meet, they were just too good for RM and knew more about the rights of the members than RM did. There had used to be a Burslem thread on this site, READ IT.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Actually there are at present 49 Threads and anyone interested in the Background to one of the most bitter disputes in Royal Mail, yet handled remarkably stoically and honourably IMHO by the posties of Burslem, can peruse the threads at their leisure: http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... mit=Search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Happy Keyer]

Is this true that Anne Worthington was RMs only witness?

In an office of almost 100 staff? If this is the case how did they think they could get this to an employment tribunal and win?

Surely there were other witnesses?

Surely they didn't honestly believe that any witnesses they chose to ignore during the internal conduct proceedings and subsequent appeal wouldn't come to light and testify once this went external?

Makes me wonder about the case I mentioned earlier. I bet that guy didn't get a fair hearing either.

I'm getting the distinct impression that RM management, both line and HR (appeals), don't care about losing in ETs and would rather waste money on legal costs than admit they got something wrong.

With the number of cases surely the CWU have evidence to back that assertion up? If so, why on earth don't they make it as public as possible? Or try and cost it and take it up with the shareholder(s) which I believe is Vince Cable at the moment.