Workplace coach and union rep? Conflict of interests?

tragictramp · Post by **tragictramp** » 25 Jan 2017, 15:16

Hi can anyone confirm whether a union rep can also be a workplace coach, I ask as our union rep is also our fleet coach, he doesnt actually do the coaching but takes the money and its officially his role,I can't see how he would be able to represent a worker in regards to anything related to driving etc?

Cheers

Post by **rainbowwarrior72** » 25 Jan 2017, 16:39

My problem would be if the unit IR/Safety rep was a team leader or deputy manager

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 25 Jan 2017, 17:28

tragictramp wrote:Hi can anyone confirm whether a union rep can also be a workplace coach, I ask as our union rep is also our fleet coach, he doesnt actually do the coaching but takes the money and its officially his role,I can't see how he would be able to represent a worker in regards to anything related to driving etc?

Cheers

There is nothing stopping them. Also, coaches can't conduct that's a manager's job, the only conflict of interest would be if his notes were used in a conduct case. In that circumstance, another rep would be able to represent a member.

In my own personal view, yes its a clash of interests and not something I support.

fat_mike · Post by **fat_mike** » 09 Mar 2018, 12:31

tragictramp wrote:Hi can anyone confirm whether a union rep can also be a workplace coach, I ask as our union rep is also our fleet coach, he doesnt actually do the coaching but takes the money and its officially his role,I can't see how he would be able to represent a worker in regards to anything related to driving etc?

Cheers

Same in my office the union rep is a coach. Doesn't make any sense. I'm considering filing a grievance against him

superdazzy · Post by **superdazzy** » 09 Mar 2018, 16:10

Where is the conflict of interest?

A WPC is there to train and coach staff, that's it

A Reps role is to represent the staff in a meeting or hearing and to relay the unions messages to everybody

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 09 Mar 2018, 16:43

A coach is there to correct staff when they do something wrong. What if a manager instructs a coach to instruct a member of staff but the member of staff believes he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be coached. What if the coached person then submits a grievance.

In my honest opinion if a rep is a coach they can't both defend a members interests and take part in a process which could mean the member being conducted. Or they cant be a coach and correct a person's perceived mistakes and at the same time ensure that the members' views are represented in a fair an open manner.

For instance, if a member believes they weren't coached correctly, is the rep really going to present that view fairly, when they were the coach concerned.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 09 Mar 2018, 16:48

To add that I think you can have excellent coaches who act fairly, and brilliant reps who do their best for the local members, I just honestly believe you can't do both jobs at the same time.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 09 Mar 2018, 18:42

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:To add that I think you can have excellent coaches who act fairly, and brilliant reps who do their best for the local members, I just honestly believe you can't do both jobs at the same time.

+1

In my branch we have had, historically, reps standing in for managers when said manager has been on annual leave

fat_mike · Post by **fat_mike** » 10 Mar 2018, 16:25

I spoke to someone from my union branch yesterday and he said it is allowed but he doesn't agree with it

superdazzy · Post by **superdazzy** » 10 Mar 2018, 18:20

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:A coach is there to correct staff when they do something wrong. What if a manager instructs a coach to instruct a member of staff but the member of staff believes he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be coached. What if the coached person then submits a grievance.

In my honest opinion if a rep is a coach they can't both defend a members interests and take part in a process which could mean the member being conducted. Or they cant be a coach and correct a person's perceived mistakes and at the same time ensure that the members' views are represented in a fair an open manner.

For instance, if a member believes they weren't coached correctly, is the rep really going to present that view fairly, when they were the coach concerned.

When you say "The coach is there to correct staff", he is only there to coach staff and to make sure they know the correct way. The coach has no place in conduct procedure.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 10 Mar 2018, 19:35

superdazzy wrote:
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:A coach is there to correct staff when they do something wrong. What if a manager instructs a coach to instruct a member of staff but the member of staff believes he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be coached. What if the coached person then submits a grievance.

In my honest opinion if a rep is a coach they can't both defend a members interests and take part in a process which could mean the member being conducted. Or they cant be a coach and correct a person's perceived mistakes and at the same time ensure that the members' views are represented in a fair an open manner.

For instance, if a member believes they weren't coached correctly, is the rep really going to present that view fairly, when they were the coach concerned.
When you say "The coach is there to correct staff", he is only there to coach staff and to make sure they know the correct way. The coach has no place in conduct procedure.

They do.

Coach, Counsel and Conduct. They won't handle the conducting part or even the counselling, but they will provide evidence to management for and conduct cases involving the 3Cs. That's the critical part of the "conflict of interest" for me if you coached someone and they carry on down the 3cs how you can you fairly represent them when your own evidence is there to be questioned by you, the rep.

There is nothing in stone stopping it, and a rep/coach who believes he can do both jobs fairly and above board with no conflict of interest is doing nothing wrong, after all its just my opinion, no one else's, but I don't think its possible if you believe in Natural Justice.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 10 Mar 2018, 23:33

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
superdazzy wrote:
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:A coach is there to correct staff when they do something wrong. What if a manager instructs a coach to instruct a member of staff but the member of staff believes he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be coached. What if the coached person then submits a grievance.

In my honest opinion if a rep is a coach they can't both defend a members interests and take part in a process which could mean the member being conducted. Or they cant be a coach and correct a person's perceived mistakes and at the same time ensure that the members' views are represented in a fair an open manner.

For instance, if a member believes they weren't coached correctly, is the rep really going to present that view fairly, when they were the coach concerned.
When you say "The coach is there to correct staff", he is only there to coach staff and to make sure they know the correct way. The coach has no place in conduct procedure.
They do.

Coach, Counsel and Conduct. They won't handle the conducting part or even the counselling, but they will provide evidence to management for and conduct cases involving the 3Cs. That's the critical part of the "conflict of interest" for me if you coached someone and they carry on down the 3cs how you can you fairly represent them when your own evidence is there to be questioned by you, the rep.

There is nothing in stone stopping it, and a rep/coach who believes he can do both jobs fairly and above board with no conflict of interest is doing nothing wrong, after all its just my opinion, no one else's, but I don't think its possible if you believe in Natural Justice.

Our coach's name is on the form you sign if you have been apprehended by the manager but he is not the union rep!