Managers duty re. B+H

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Another thread disappointingly taken off course by people ignoring the rules:

Do not accuse anyone of being a manager or a Union fanatic - What's the point, if they are or they aren't, it doesn't affect their right to hold a different opinion, or to post that opinion.

Also why does everyone claim the right of "Free Speech" but then resort to telling people to wind their neck in.

Every time people use abuse, or question a contributors position within the company, rather than debating the points raised with respect and consideration, then the value and the credibility of RMC is degraded, and the same can be said for the authors of such posts.

[spilie]

My Apologies

[Luke Skywalker]

I apologize also to everyone involved and take outboard what you say.

[elias]

The key word in the report is 'recommendation' - the investigator has recommended that conduct action is taken against the individual. Your line manager could well have interviewed the individual in question and made the decision following the interview that counselling etc was sufficient in this case, he is not obliged to adhere to any penalty recommendations given by the investigator. It could be on reading the report your manager did not agree with the findings or felt there was a flaw somewhere in the case. Have you spoken to your local union rep, I would expect them to have sat in on any interview so they would probably know if this case was pursued. If you still have doubts I would recommend you write to your area DSM and highlight your concerns and ask him/her to investigate whether any conduct actually did take place.

[jetblack]

..he is not obliged to adhere to any penalty recommendations given by the investigator. It could be on reading the report your manager did not agree with the findings or felt there was a flaw somewhere in the case.

Yes - I have a feeling that this is possible. Unfortunately. Because this means that the whole procedure is a complete and utter waste of time - and a stressful waste of time at that.
If it is the case that the line manager is not obliged to act upon the investigating managers recommendations then this has to be a pretty serious flaw in the system. After all, depending on the circumstances, it may be that the line manager isn't conversant with the case at all - and yet is still (basically) able to overturn the decision of another manager who has fully investigated the case. Doesn't make sense. Would the line manager be accountable for such an action (or none action) ? Also, the whole principle of bringing in an impartial manager outwith the area to investigate the case would be a sham if the local line manager has the final decision. Surely someone somewhere has covered this possibility already and it is covered in guidelines somewhere, to prevent this outcome ?

An impartial jury of 12 men and women spend 4 weeks reaching a verdict on a trial. They decide guilty. The judge, who has actually not even been present at the trial (he was away on more pressing concerns) then enters the courtroom at the last minute to say that he has decided, in spite of the jury's lengthy deliberations and eventual verdict, he believes the defendant is innocent on all charges and is to walk free.
The jury would quite rightly be sat there asking the question, what was the point of the trial in the first place (a time consuming, costly and stressful trial at that) ?

Anyhow, I'll give it a few months and if I haven't heard anything I'll consider my options. The idea of emailing Moya isn't such a bad idea. The idea that my line manager can just basically ignore the investigating managers recommendation, and when/if questioned on it can merely point out that he has the final say - well, it is very far from acceptable in my mind. If my manager is able to do that then its not so much an abuse of the system - but that the system is flawed IMHO.

[35wayno]

Just to remind you the findings of this case carries recommendations, and that is exactly what they are, just recommendations. This means that your harassers line manager may well decide to ignore this recommendation. Call me an old cynic but managers can pick and choose which recommendations to follow and conducting one of his 'own' would seem unlikely
Hope this helps

[jetblack]

Just to remind you the findings of this case carries recommendations, and that is exactly what they are, just recommendations. This means that your harassers line manager may well decide to ignore this recommendation. Call me an old cynic but managers can pick and choose which recommendations to follow and conducting one of his 'own' would seem unlikely
Hope this helps

Again, thanks for everyones input.

But if you are correct, then the much vaunted Royal Mail Bullying and Harassment procedure needs abolishing as its not fit for purpose. It creates the illusion of accountability - but doesn't actually deliver. Its a con - a chimera - a palliative to help keep us all satisfied, but in practice merely serves to perpetuate the abuse and injustice.

Any Union guys out there ? Is this the way it goes with the B+H procedure ? Recommendations only implemented via line managers discretion ?

Can anyone point me in the right direction to at least read/investigate the line managers responsibiltys/duty of care ? Do they have one ? Or are we in the Wild West/Dark Ages here ?

There must be statutory rights of the employee that come into play here, and corresponding (fiduciary ?) duties of the employer ?

For my line manager to completely disregard the recommendations of the investigating manager then I would reckon that he would have to have very strong grounds for having done so - otherwise it would be negligence.
The question then becomes, if the line manager is in possesion of such compelling and mitigating evidence, why wasn't it made available to the investigating manager in the first place ? Because the investigating manager not being aware of such crucial and game changing evidence has effectively hindered and impaired his investigation - thereby rendering his results null and void and rendering everyone involved's time well and truly wasted

Anyhow - its coming up to Christmas, so I'm going to try to not dwell on it too much - only winds me up.

I'll start afresh in the New Year. But I reckon that if my line manager hasn't acted come 6 months down the line (more than sufficient time to act, even given the busy Xmas period) then I am due a comprehensive explanation.

And it better be f----in good.

[dvbuk55]

Have you spoken to the line manager who is supposed to act on the recommendation (if he considers it necessary)? TBH if you've already waited 3 months without any communication and are now prepared to wait a further 6 months I would ask him NOW because the longer you leave it the less likely any action will be taken. He may consider the case closed if you don't chase it up.

[Brainache]

wow Drains you really need help with that anger but for the hard of learning I will again ask what difference does it make to the situation if the op is told or not? surely the most important thing is that the behaviour has stopped and if not then use the procedure as before, also your advice to mouth about someone's punishment may land you in the same seat they were in but they can always ask you to defend them if that happens ,,,,,,,,,,,

If the op is not told the outcome, then the case hasnt been completed - `You will be informed once these recomendations HAVE been completed` not `IF`. And more importantly the victim cannot feel reassured that the unacceptable behaviour will not happen again.

If another postie got a two year warning for having a go at me, then of course, if talking about the fellow with other posties, I can mention the punishment, it is not a secret and it is not mouthing off.`

Anyway - a few years ago, I had the pleasure of being one of the few in my office who helped get the office bully sacked, proud of it too.
I thought I was the only witness who came forward, a couple of years later, it came out (in the pub) that someone else had beaten me to it to be a witness - I thought he was one of his mates, but obviously not. It was all kept very hush hush and he just dissappeared. From my experience management will try and take the easy way out re B&H especially if they are chummy with the accused.

Thats enough from me - I`m off to my festive retreat for a while - Tracy Island - where else !!! .