CWU Rep facing conduct code.

Post by **TheBushBaby** » 13 Mar 2017, 12:56

Our Branch is currently launching a consultative ballot in support of a CWU rep whom was removed from his unit. The consultative ballot is asking members across the HA/UB post code if they would support a local rep who finds themselves in the conduct code.

It is suggested that the local rep made allegations regarding Managers paying inappropriate overtime that clashes with duty attendance times. The rep (who will remain nameless for legal reasons) was removed from his unit for making such allegations is now facing the prospect of the Conduct code.

The CWU Branch has decided not to wait for Managers to steer the case and are in the process consultative ballot with members asking them "Would you support a local CWU Representative by any means possible ? " With an option of 'YES' or 'NO'.

The case continues.....

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 13 Mar 2017, 13:01

Added Poll

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 13 Mar 2017, 14:15

I suppose it would depend on whether the allegations were true and how the rep made them.
I think someone has lost their job for making similar allegations about their manager on these very pages.

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 13 Mar 2017, 16:51

Am I to understand that the rep,is alleging fraudulent activity?
If it is, then all I can say ,is,rightly or wrongly , it has been going on since time immemorial. I could be wrong of course and in that case, then like a man in orthopaedic shoes, I stand corrected.
Shouldn't this be in the union section?

Destiny · Post by **Destiny** » 13 Mar 2017, 16:58

Yeah, would vote yes regardless too show solidarity.

Post by **TheBushBaby** » 12 Apr 2017, 15:29

Just an update.

The suspension continues. No formal charges have been made to the Rep concerned. The Consultative ballot continues and the rep who is suspended has chosen an Area Rep from the Branch over a Divisional Rep.

The Case continues.....

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 12 Apr 2017, 16:15

Anyone who has knowledge of fraudulent behaviour by any member of staff has a duty to report it. It is important that members of staff feel secure that they can report this behaviour freely without fear of intimidation. There are therefore two separate issues here. The message that the suspension of a CWU rep promotes and whether the allegations were made in good faith.

There are processes in place to deal with the latter but that has nothing to do with whether the former should.ever go unchallenged. In my experience suspending a rep has only one purpose.

TheTrolleyMan · Post by **TheTrolleyMan** » 12 Apr 2017, 18:52

If you need our Union rep just pop into the gaffers office and he'll be there sat on the gaffers knee

viking1488 · Post by **viking1488** » 12 Apr 2017, 19:50

TheTrolleyMan wrote:If you need our Union rep just pop into the gaffers office and he'll be there sat on the gaffers knee

Creditshampoo · Post by **Creditshampoo** » 12 Apr 2017, 21:15

Ghosting isn't allowed so if he made light of it what the hell can they do.
We have had managers suspended recently for allowing ghosting

Post by **General Mannerheim** » 12 Apr 2017, 21:39

TheTrolleyMan wrote:If you need our Union rep just pop into the gaffers office and he'll be there sat on the gaffers knee

Or making him brews like ours!

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 12 Apr 2017, 22:17

General Mannerheim wrote:
TheTrolleyMan wrote:If you need our Union rep just pop into the gaffers office and he'll be there sat on the gaffers knee
Or making him brews like ours!

Someone else stand as rep.

Himaggen · Post by **Himaggen** » 13 Apr 2017, 14:59

The union should wait, (except for supporting local action), until sufficient information is provided/discussed at divisional level (as part of the rep's procedure).