Poorly wrote:No need to be rude. You have to have some basis of making an appeal, all of which takes time to prepare and then conduct. Do you think that has no cost?
The vast majority of appeals would be on procedural grounds at very little cost and could be dealt with during weekly resource meetings or during existing release.
I don't believe a stage 1 appeal is necessarily needed but i do believe an appeal before dismissal stage at stage 2 should have been a priority.
The stress members are placed under by unnecessary stage 3 procedures is ridiculous.
Most of the extra cost could be mitigated by reducing the resultant number of stage 3 appeals which are naturally more detailed and therefore more expensive.
Which is a helluva long way from the necessity of doubling the subs As for the necessity of an appeal at Stage 1 - in our office just today a union member was in for a stage 1, the Rep had already left and the sub rep was on day off. I advised him to wait until tomorrow when the sub rep could go in with him - though I did say he was unlikely even with a rep to escape the stage 1..................he went in by himself and did indeed get a stage 1 which more or less reinforces the idea that a stage 1 appeal is unnecessary.
Could have taken anybody in,could have got it to be postponed as no rep available.what a tool.
Never go into an office on your own with these lying back stabbing turds.
Royal Mail managers.....about as popular as a t.urd in a swimming pool!
The DDA/Equality Act demands action,NOT words......adjustments NOT Occupational Health referrals.Case No:2505901/09
Royal Mail is an Equal Opportunities Employer..It discriminates against everybody.
General Mannerheim wrote:Could have taken anybody in,could have got it to be postponed as no rep available.what a tool.
Never go into an office on your own with these lying back stabbing turds.
To cap it all the paperwork had an error but he said he just wanted to get it over with
Maybe my idea of an appeal would be different yours. If I were the rep I'd want to spend time with the employee composing the letter of appeal. The appeal would be held by a different manager and there would be another interview. All in all it would probably take longer than the initial interview. Given the fact that there are vastly more stage 1s and 2s than 3s, I think reps would need a lot more release.
Poorly wrote:Maybe my idea of an appeal would be different yours. If I were the rep I'd want to spend time with the employee composing the letter of appeal. The appeal would be held by a different manager and there would be another interview. All in all it would probably take longer than the initial interview. Given the fact that there are vastly more stage 1s and 2s than 3s, I think reps would need a lot more release.
Vastly different - but where do you get the idea that subs would have to double?
I believe that a great deal of stage 1 and 2's are issued mechanistically and outside guidance/procedure precisely because there is no appeal system.
This leads to members using the grievance procedure which is arguably more expensive since it has the potential of 3 stages,involving Area Management and Divisional Reps.
I believe that having an appeal at stage 2 rather than 3 would encourage management to improve their handling of the whole Attendance Procedure,reduce mistakes and look harder at mitigation thus improving the whole process,reducing bogus stages,reducing the need for appeals and reducing overall costs.
I agree ft, too many members believe that stage 1 and 2 are a mere bagatelle and don't become worried until a stage 3 raises it's ugly head by which time it's often too late. IMHO having an appeal at stage 2 would potentially reduce the cost by negating the necessity for many of the prolonged stage 3 appeals by highlighting procedural failures early on. As for stage 1; providing that the criteria is met and that management deal with the member fairly and honestly then it should be taken as a warning by the member to be aware that he/she is under potential scrutiny for the future. I once heard a member ask what his sick record was like and when told he was OK promptly went sick for a week!! I'm afraid the old days of taking a sickie with impunity has long gone. Remember the good old days when people would say they had a weeks holiday and 6 days sick in hand
Poorly wrote:Maybe my idea of an appeal would be different yours. If I were the rep I'd want to spend time with the employee composing the letter of appeal. The appeal would be held by a different manager and there would be another interview. All in all it would probably take longer than the initial interview. Given the fact that there are vastly more stage 1s and 2s than 3s, I think reps would need a lot more release.
Vastly different - but where do you get the idea that subs would have to double?
How would you envisage an appeal working. I don't know if they would double but if the reps need more time then surely that will cost more.
fishtank wrote:I believe that a great deal of stage 1 and 2's are issued mechanistically and outside guidance/procedure precisely because there is no appeal system.
This leads to members using the grievance procedure which is arguably more expensive since it has the potential of 3 stages,involving Area Management and Divisional Reps.
I believe that having an appeal at stage 2 rather than 3 would encourage management to improve their handling of the whole Attendance Procedure,reduce mistakes and look harder at mitigation thus improving the whole process,reducing bogus stages,reducing the need for appeals and reducing overall costs.
Cost is not always as obvious as it seems Poorly.
Having an appeal at stage 3 doesn't really increase the manager's diligence when conducting the stage 3 interview now, so I doubt it will make any difference at stage 1 and 2. We all know that managers have made their mind up (or had it made for them) before the actual interview. The only thing it may encourage is the manager to document the interview more carefully. I would suggest that it is actually to our benefit that managers cock up the stage 1 or 2 as the whole procedure will then fall down at stage 3. Tribunals are mainly interested adherence to robust procedures, so by tightening up the process it will benefit RM more than the employee.
Having said that, it's a risky and stressful game to play, waiting for stage 3.
dvbuk55 wrote:I agree ft, too many members believe that stage 1 and 2 are a mere bagatelle and don't become worried until a stage 3 raises it's ugly head by which time it's often too late.
This implies that appeal at stage 2 wouldn't be used.
dvbuk55 wrote:As for stage 1; providing that the criteria is met and that management deal with the member fairly and honestly then it should be taken as a warning by the member to be aware that he/she is under potential scrutiny for the future.
If all members are dealt with fairly and honestly then why do we need an appeal at any stage?
Poorly wrote:Maybe my idea of an appeal would be different yours. If I were the rep I'd want to spend time with the employee composing the letter of appeal. The appeal would be held by a different manager and there would be another interview. All in all it would probably take longer than the initial interview. Given the fact that there are vastly more stage 1s and 2s than 3s, I think reps would need a lot more release.
Vastly different - but where do you get the idea that subs would have to double?
How would you envisage an appeal working. I don't know if they would double but if the reps need more time then surely that will cost more.
The rep is paid by RM, if he cannot complete his duty then it will have to be covered by RM - that cost is not transfered to the union as the rep is actually working on behalf of RM in a sense albeit representing the member.
dvbuk55 wrote:I agree ft, too many members believe that stage 1 and 2 are a mere bagatelle and don't become worried until a stage 3 raises it's ugly head by which time it's often too late.
This implies that appeal at stage 2 wouldn't be used. No it doesn't it depends on each individual and having the availability which doesn't exist now.
dvbuk55 wrote:As for stage 1; providing that the criteria is met and that management deal with the member fairly and honestly then it should be taken as a warning by the member to be aware that he/she is under potential scrutiny for the future.
If all members are dealt with fairly and honestly then why do we need an appeal at any stage?
As for the necessity of an appeal at Stage 1 - in our office just today a union member was in for a stage 1, the Rep had already left and the sub rep was on day off. I advised him to wait until tomorrow when the sub rep could go in with him - though I did say he was unlikely even with a rep to escape the stage 1..................he went in by himself and did indeed get a stage 1 which more or less reinforces the idea that a stage 1 appeal is unnecessary.
