BULLYING & HARASSMENT - COMPLAINTS NOT MADE IN GOOD FAIT

[brothermagrew]

Complaints that are not made in good faith undermine the validity of the whole process and damage the basis of good working relationships. While a Guiding Principle of the Bullying & Harassment Procedure is that managers will treat all complaints seriously, there is an obligation upon all employees that complaints must be made in good faith.

On completion of an investigation, where an investigating manager believes there is evidence to suggest that a complaint was not made in good faith, s/he must decide whether the complaint was so made. For a complaint to be deemed as not made in good faith there must be reasonable grounds for belief with supporting evidence. For example; where a complaint that is brought is untrue and/or aims to annoy, irritate, distress, damage or otherwise harm the reputation and/or integrity of the person against whom it has been made.

If it is found that a complaint has not been made in good faith, appropriate action may be taken under the Conduct Code, which may include DISMISSAL.

Where it is believed that the complaint was not made in good faith, the investigator will:

1. Compile a summary of supporting evidence, clearly stating why they believe that the complaint was so made.
2. Inform the Complainant of the outcome of the harassment investigation and that s/he believes there is evidence to suggest that the complaint was not made in good faith, and
3. Forward the summary and the original case papers to the relevant RCM.
4. The RCM will use the summary only to decide whether the case should be dealt with under the Conduct Code.

NB: The original Investigating Manager will not undertake the Investigation of the Conduct case.

[barkersboy]

Very good brother magrew. Spot on for management.
However, you being management, have evry card going for you.
Has anyone on this sight , or does anyone know of a colleague wha has tried the Bullying/Harassment/Grievance procedures against management, know of anyone being vindicated and management accepting they were wrong. I would be astyonished if anyone has had a fair result.
I have been there,as an individual putting forward my case, and as a rep supporting members on three ocassions. Despite the evidence the investigating manager has always found an obscure reason that goes against the individual.
My opinion is to do away with the process of management/UNION representation and to go straight to civil legal representation. The CWU could fund part of this by accepting they have no sway with RM and saving time and effort and cost by going civil immediately. Forget tribunals. By the time it gets to IT union blunders negate the possibility of a result.
My £3 fees are going into legal services for when I need them. CWU useless in theses cases.

[brothermagrew]

Very good brother magrew. Spot on for management.
However, you being management, have evry card going for you.
Has anyone on this sight , or does anyone know of a colleague wha has tried the Bullying/Harassment/Grievance procedures against management, know of anyone being vindicated and management accepting they were wrong. I would be astyonished if anyone has had a fair result.
I have been there,as an individual putting forward my case, and as a rep supporting members on three ocassions. Despite the evidence the investigating manager has always found an obscure reason that goes against the individual.
My opinion is to do away with the process of management/UNION representation and to go straight to civil legal representation. The CWU could fund part of this by accepting they have no sway with RM and saving time and effort and cost by going civil immediately. Forget tribunals. By the time it gets to IT union blunders negate the possibility of a result.
My £3 fees are going into legal services for when I need them. CWU useless in theses cases.

You are barking up the wrong tree brother me management no feckin way..... I'm a CWU health and safety rep and I didn't spend 8 days on a cold freezing picket line to get cheap insults slung at me on this forum. 20 years + and I'm as trade union as they come.

[andy2007]

Very good brother magrew. Spot on for management.
However, you being management, have evry card going for you.
Has anyone on this sight , or does anyone know of a colleague wha has tried the Bullying/Harassment/Grievance procedures against management, know of anyone being vindicated and management accepting they were wrong. I would be astyonished if anyone has had a fair result.
I have been there,as an individual putting forward my case, and as a rep supporting members on three ocassions. Despite the evidence the investigating manager has always found an obscure reason that goes against the individual.
My opinion is to do away with the process of management/UNION representation and to go straight to civil legal representation. The CWU could fund part of this by accepting they have no sway with RM and saving time and effort and cost by going civil immediately. Forget tribunals. By the time it gets to IT union blunders negate the possibility of a result.
My £3 fees are going into legal services for when I need them. CWU useless in theses cases.

I was forced to take out a complaint against a manager several years ago, which was sorted out before it came to a full scale investigation. The major problem with the case, was that the manager, insisted that it was a temporary Secretary who was causing the problems, and it would be virtually impossible for me to prove it one way or another. As a result, I went for a month without wages! I ended up having to borrow money to get enough Petrol to get to work!

I had been on sick leave, and they stopped my wages. When I returned, he failed to authorise the resumption of my wages, for a month.

I got my wages restarted, and the missing wages. He also apologised for me being put in that situation, but insisted that it was all down to the temporary Secretary.

[mailsort6]

Very good brother magrew. Spot on for management.
However, you being management, have evry card going for you.
Has anyone on this sight , or does anyone know of a colleague wha has tried the Bullying/Harassment/Grievance procedures against management, know of anyone being vindicated and management accepting they were wrong. I would be astyonished if anyone has had a fair result.
I have been there,as an individual putting forward my case, and as a rep supporting members on three ocassions. Despite the evidence the investigating manager has always found an obscure reason that goes against the individual.
My opinion is to do away with the process of management/UNION representation and to go straight to civil legal representation. The CWU could fund part of this by accepting they have no sway with RM and saving time and effort and cost by going civil immediately. Forget tribunals. By the time it gets to IT union blunders negate the possibility of a result.
My £3 fees are going into legal services for when I need them. CWU useless in theses cases.

There are good union reps and union bad reps and I have seen cases where members have losted cases or had complaints swept under the carpet because of bad representation from some union reps. If an inexperienced rep is not sure about certain procedures ask another experienced union rep that know about employment and equality issues, union reps should not assume and give cwu members bad advice.

[madelin4]

I dont believe an employee would go to that hassel just for the sake.So how could they say bad faith. Managers just seem to be untouchable. Royal Mail have a lot of good people working for them, and a lot of union leaders out there who do care and take things very much to heart.

[brothermagrew]

madelin4

Unfortunately sister they do not say in bad faith, they say complaints not made in good faith

[dvbuk55]

I have to say I have witnessed posties making scurrilous accusations about managers, which isn't deserved, just because they are being asked to work to a certain standard. Not to a serious degree but it does happen and could be misconstrued as "not in good faith" because there is no just cause of a case of harassment.

I am glad to say that the B&H hysteria that was so prevalent a couple of years ago has largely died down thank god. That is not to say that it doesn't exist but it should be put in perspective. You see on here that posties make comparisons on working practices and work rate of their colleagues and yet when a manager does it - and that is part of his job - he can be accused of harassment.

[L Tommo]

Ive made my points on this very clear and have made my own personal issues knowledge a few times being very carefull not to make my claim liabel.... RM in my opinon of cases ive seen and heard of DONT TREAT EACH CASE WITH THE PROPER INDERVIDUAL ISSUES THEY SHOULD DO...

Every case has its own merits and should be treated the same... Now i have still evidence to show a member of RM did something to me that a Manager in my First H&B case found for me in FAVOUR..... But 2 cases not for me...... I argued the fact that the reason the 1st issue for me was proven then the second followed and so on... I know im brief as i have to be (legal reasons) But RM pushes all the facts under the carpet and tried to turn the tables on me.... I was seen as making a claim in bad faith... Not ... "NOT IN GOOD FAITH" Which is so different as DVBUK said.,..

It makes a differing of the facts as RM use it and by law...B MAGREW mate i hear your points and i might have to bring this up when i deal with RM and My brief.... Its a very important point that could work in my favour?????

Ive been accused now and its for RM to prove this..... With facts.... I asked for FACTS from my original appeal and was denied because IT WASNT A CODE OF CONDUCT THEN... IT WAS A H&B CASE... Now RM want a CofC i can and have asked for all every bit of evidence from my original cases to be given to me inline with the CofC rights of an accused person....... RM aint given me a fecking thing!!!! ANOTHER POINT OF LAW....


If you have a legal brief with you .. YOU have a good chance.... No disrespect to the good people in your and my DO's and MC's they aint a legal person only a person of good will...... Simpson & Miller SO far are just on a retainer from the CWU for our business,,,,, DONT BOTHER i say but let them and the CWU ghosts that lurk on this site that i know of that browsed over a previous post of mine slagging off a CWU rep i had dealings with and the person thought it was them i was talking about.... THEY LOOKED STUPID AS I DIDNT... THEY was told by a third party who knows feck all....... nosy bastard!!!! (sorry this rant was for there benefit) So the morals of this story is... NEVER LET THE BASTARDS GRIND US DOWN.... Even the shiney arsed so called union reps up at HQ and the PEC... They know who they are!!!!!


out

ps I HATE GUTLESS PEOPLE!!

[madelin4]

madelin4

Unfortunately sister they do not say in bad faith, they say complaints not made in good faith

Thanks for the help

[saru]

Ive made my points on this very clear and have made my own personal issues knowledge a few times being very carefull not to make my claim liabel.... RM in my opinon of cases ive seen and heard of DONT TREAT EACH CASE WITH THE PROPER INDERVIDUAL ISSUES THEY SHOULD DO...

Every case has its own merits and should be treated the same... Now i have still evidence to show a member of RM did something to me that a Manager in my First H&B case found for me in FAVOUR..... But 2 cases not for me...... I argued the fact that the reason the 1st issue for me was proven then the second followed and so on... I know im brief as i have to be (legal reasons) But RM pushes all the facts under the carpet and tried to turn the tables on me.... I was seen as making a claim in bad faith... Not ... "NOT IN GOOD FAITH" Which is so different as DVBUK said.,..

It makes a differing of the facts as RM use it and by law...B MAGREW mate i hear your points and i might have to bring this up when i deal with RM and My brief.... Its a very important point that could work in my favour?????

Ive been accused now and its for RM to prove this..... With facts.... I asked for FACTS from my original appeal and was denied because IT WASNT A CODE OF CONDUCT THEN... IT WAS A H&B CASE... Now RM want a CofC i can and have asked for all every bit of evidence from my original cases to be given to me inline with the CofC rights of an accused person....... RM aint given me a fecking thing!!!! ANOTHER POINT OF LAW....


If you have a legal brief with you .. YOU have a good chance.... No disrespect to the good people in your and my DO's and MC's they aint a legal person only a person of good will...... Simpson & Miller SO far are just on a retainer from the CWU for our business,,,,, DONT BOTHER i say but let them and the CWU ghosts that lurk on this site that i know of that browsed over a previous post of mine slagging off a CWU rep i had dealings with and the person thought it was them i was talking about.... THEY LOOKED STUPID AS I DIDNT... THEY was told by a third party who knows feck all....... nosy bastard!!!! (sorry this rant was for there benefit) So the morals of this story is... NEVER LET THE BASTARDS GRIND US DOWN.... Even the shiney arsed so called union reps up at HQ and the PEC... They know who they are!!!!!


out

ps I HATE GUTLESS PEOPLE!!

Good luck, Tommo. I know exactly where you're coming from.

Royal Mail's Bullying & Harassment policy looks good on paper but it's an absolute f*cking joke, just like the managers they put in charge of the cases. I'm going through s**t with them, I don't want to go into detail on here as it is ongoing. It looks like I'm heading straight for an ET & if I make public what has been going on as I'm prepared to do, RM will look soooo bad!

[brothermagrew]

Ive made my points on this very clear and have made my own personal issues knowledge a few times being very carefull not to make my claim liabel.... RM in my opinon of cases ive seen and heard of DONT TREAT EACH CASE WITH THE PROPER INDERVIDUAL ISSUES THEY SHOULD DO...

Every case has its own merits and should be treated the same... Now i have still evidence to show a member of RM did something to me that a Manager in my First H&B case found for me in FAVOUR..... But 2 cases not for me...... I argued the fact that the reason the 1st issue for me was proven then the second followed and so on... I know im brief as i have to be (legal reasons) But RM pushes all the facts under the carpet and tried to turn the tables on me.... I was seen as making a claim in bad faith... Not ... "NOT IN GOOD FAITH" Which is so different as DVBUK said.,..

It makes a differing of the facts as RM use it and by law...B MAGREW mate i hear your points and i might have to bring this up when i deal with RM and My brief.... Its a very important point that could work in my favour?????

Ive been accused now and its for RM to prove this..... With facts.... I asked for FACTS from my original appeal and was denied because IT WASNT A CODE OF CONDUCT THEN... IT WAS A H&B CASE... Now RM want a CofC i can and have asked for all every bit of evidence from my original cases to be given to me inline with the CofC rights of an accused person....... RM aint given me a fecking thing!!!! ANOTHER POINT OF LAW....


If you have a legal brief with you .. YOU have a good chance.... No disrespect to the good people in your and my DO's and MC's they aint a legal person only a person of good will...... Simpson & Miller SO far are just on a retainer from the CWU for our business,,,,, DONT BOTHER i say but let them and the CWU ghosts that lurk on this site that i know of that browsed over a previous post of mine slagging off a CWU rep i had dealings with and the person thought it was them i was talking about.... THEY LOOKED STUPID AS I DIDNT... THEY was told by a third party who knows feck all....... nosy bastard!!!! (sorry this rant was for there benefit) So the morals of this story is... NEVER LET THE BASTARDS GRIND US DOWN.... Even the shiney arsed so called union reps up at HQ and the PEC... They know who they are!!!!!


out

ps I HATE GUTLESS PEOPLE!!

Good luck, Tommo. I know exactly where you're coming from.

Royal Mail's Bullying & Harassment policy looks good on paper but it's an absolute f*cking joke, just like the managers they put in charge of the cases. I'm going through s**t with them, I don't want to go into detail on here as it is ongoing. It looks like I'm heading straight for an ET & if I make public what has been going on as I'm prepared to do, RM will look soooo bad!

Good luck to both L Tommo and saru sincerely wish you both have successful outcomes.

[norbet colon]

quote -'rm's policy looks good on paper but in reality it's a joke "-that's it in a nutshell , there 's the usual RM problem of no joined up thinking , things falling on their own contradictions which most people can draw their own conclusions from , and some cases begging more questions than they answer

RM were given a problem with the Jermaine Lee suicide , AL doesn't really give a s**t about something like that , but he SOMETIMES does give a s**t about adverse publicity that he & his staff can't spin their way out of , and most importantly having outside investigators like Success Factor in Oxford MC , or the the CRE , HSE & EOC threatening to investigate RM .

It's all about impressing Toytown Middle class white liberals with spin , hype & eyewash , naturally it's totally superficial . The reality unfortunately, for the ivory towers brigade is somewhat different .

The problem was there was too many claims made against managers , some may well have been spurious & spiteful ones made by lazy people as Debuk 55 rightly says , I've seen too many spurious ones made by people playing the race card , before I get accused by the bleeding hearts brigade of being Nick Griffin , some of the complaints smacked of inverted racisim.

I've never known a Industry that's continually in crisis mode . Their management style is too dated , regimented , there's no common sense or discretion , obviously there's a fear culture with that top down style and RM simply can't sort the wheat from the chaff , everything is purely to impress senior `& area .

RM had to" discourage" people from making complaints so the "solution " was work backwards i.e. verdict =guilty , charge by twisting everything round , "evidence " to "fit " the fit & blue-eyed boys as "witnesses " .

In a nutshell it's a 70's style police fit up , some were guilty some were not , but it's a 70's style of management anyway .

RM aren't going to go against their own and have to wriggle out of things .

That counter bad faith charge of to cause distress ,alarm etc comes from The Harassment Act 97 which was orginally meant for the victims of stalkers , RM basically turn the harasser into the victim.

You can play that game but if Senior Mangers start sounding & acting like Solictors , they'll eventually come against somebody smarter than them and they'll find their tactics will bite them on the a***.

I think the CWU & Simpson /Miller are frightened of RM's solictors turning things into test cases especially with RM's arrogant / we know best stance .RM would use prolonged litigation to weaken the CWU financially , it's just a game & it will be , chance & contigency .

There's the age old CWU problem of sitting on things and copping out by playing politics .

RM CAN be nailed but there is a knack to doing it with good prosecution i.e. forcibly making points on the bounds of probabilities .

RM in their arrogance think they can do bent beyond all reasonable doubt , criminal burden of proof , fit ups . Their arrogance can be their achilles heel , there's more than one way of skinning a cat ??? , just use it !