Advice re dismissal please

[andy2007]

Hi, many thanks for your replies.

Unfortunately OH is not in the CWU.
My head hurts from all of this

Best wishes an all that but ,WHY NOT. Obviously "it'll never happen to me" does not apply in hubbies case

Oh yes, what a helpful post

What you give is what you get,Jack

The days of the "Closed Shop" are long gone. Not everyone is a Trade Unionist. Just because her Other Half isn't a Trade Unionist, doesn't mean that he isn't entitled to be treated properly. Simply criticising someone in that situation is low, very low. How about a little compassion, eh?

[norbert]

Hi, many thanks for your replies.

Unfortunately OH is not in the CWU.
My head hurts from all of this

Best wishes an all that but ,WHY NOT. Obviously "it'll never happen to me" does not apply in hubbies case

Oh yes, what a helpful post

What you give is what you get,Jack

The days of the "Closed Shop" are long gone. Not everyone is a Trade Unionist. Just because her Other Half isn't a Trade Unionist, doesn't mean that he isn't entitled to be treated properly. Simply criticising someone in that situation is low, very low. How about a little compassion, eh?

you could argue that RM know who isn't in the Union and how they smell blood and like to dilute unionism and play divide and rule - locally I've seen a non member represented as the Union were looking for this manager involved as he and his now retired father had a long history of bullying and even racism and he'd already stitched someone up and got him on a serious . That manager naturally had been well protected as he was in the boys club run by a over promoted illiterate alkie - which is really just one step up from the school bully and his mates .

As it happened the Non Member joined , he'd learnt the hard way how RM operate in very shady and underhand way , also you've got to think about all the corporate cr** people are fed with , there's a lot of Thatcher's children .

In another service , one grade went on weekly strike for some period , the employer stated that we had to have a medical certificate if anybody from other grades went off on the strike days under employment law . On Settlement the employer vindictively stopped the union subs being taken out of the wages .

The Unions argument was regardless of your view on the union - it was better the devil you knew - Out of 12 people they had in the office - 8 union members kept their jobs , the four non members were sacked

[BELIAL]

Hi, many thanks for your replies.

Unfortunately OH is not in the CWU.
My head hurts from all of this

Best wishes an all that but ,WHY NOT. Obviously "it'll never happen to me" does not apply in hubbies case

Oh yes, what a helpful post

What you give is what you get,Jack

The days of the "Closed Shop" are long gone. Not everyone is a Trade Unionist. Just because her Other Half isn't a Trade Unionist, doesn't mean that he isn't entitled to be treated properly. Simply criticising someone in that situation is low, very low. How about a little compassion, eh?

I was trying to be nice "best wishes" but you are right ,I've got no real sympathy for those stand alone,"who needs the union" lot who are quite happy to accept all the gains we struggle for.If you choose not to stand shoulder to shoulder with your workmates it is not a neutral choice, every single selfish act of refusal to accept our collective situation represents a weakening of our strength and in effect colludes with the Fat Cats attacks on our pay and conditions.As Norb says 'Thatchers children' , they make their choices,then get shocked when the inevitable consequences arrive.Miley can have my entire store of compassion, but it won't save hubbys job, joining the union might have helped though

[NumptyBumpty]

Regardless of the squabbling going on here, everyone is entitled to be treated within the law whether a union member or not . I'd await the decision before consulting solicitors etc. I'll be very surprised if the decision is anything but to remove from the procedure altogether as nearly all absences were covered by the DDA. If the outcome is anything else then, that's one clueless manager and it wouldn't stand a chance at appeal.

[BELIAL]

Quite right ,and the only person who mentioned unfair or unequal treatment did so in terms of 'it should never occur'.
Not so sure that this case bears out your view that the matter of union membership, yes/no is a petty squabble though, after all it might cost this chap his job.

[Tall Guy]

The chances of dismissal at this meeting are very low. It states in the Attendance Procedure that all absences due to DDA should be discounted. Therefore, unless your chap has been told in wiritng that they are going to consider his absences under the attendance procedure because his absences have been seen to be managerially unacceptable, then you will win any tribunal going.

My prediction is that the outcome of the stage 3 is that they will tell him that the previous absences have been unacceptable and that from this point forward, the terms of the attendance procedure will be varied as a "reasonable adjustment" under the DDA. Therefore, a level of absences higher than the standard will apply in future.

if he is sacked, then on the basis of what you've said on here being completely correct, you have a genuinley bombproof tribunal case. RM are not that stupid.

[norbert]

The chances of dismissal at this meeting are very low. It states in the Attendance Procedure that all absences due to DDA should be discounted. Therefore, unless your chap has been told in wiritng that they are going to consider his absences under the attendance procedure because his absences have been seen to be managerially unacceptable, then you will win any tribunal going.

My prediction is that the outcome of the stage 3 is that they will tell him that the previous absences have been unacceptable and that from this point forward, the terms of the attendance procedure will be varied as a "reasonable adjustment" under the DDA. Therefore, a level of absences higher than the standard will apply in future.

if he is sacked, then on the basis of what you've said on here being completely correct, you have a genuinley bombproof tribunal case. RM are not that stupid.

That's been botched all the way through - some RM places are famous for it - they've failed to follow their procedure . I'd join the Union pronto and make sure you've a RTU trained rep and branch know about it .

The Union's job is to find things wrong - some reps are very good at it and boy do RM cock things up .

The ATOS doctor sounds if he's looking for Brownie Points in the " Managers are aware " comment - that's covering for RM which I'm inclined to view with cynicism and contempt - He should have been sent to ATOS on the Stage 2 with a BRF . A better ATOS doctor would say it wouldn't stand up in a Tribunal though .

That appears to be no underlying causes sounds like a standard letter hurriedly given out - that is libelous , never mind RM contradicting themselves , any Employment or CWU solicitor would wipe the floor with RM for issuing a letter like that

I could imagine RM taking him off RMAP BUT it would have been very stressful being on a Stage 2 - Technically he could have taken RM to court just for putting him on one and that has allegedly happened at Macclesfield as the medical "expert" managers thought that somebody who was waiting for an operation and had been on a dialysis machine was swinging the lead - nothing to do of course with a previous strike when they tried to stitch him up on willful delay .

Sounds like a lot of pressure from Area ? in this thread case with targets to get people through the door .

I think RM tried to get a rep on the run by putting him on a Stage 2 as they didn't believe he was a DDA case .

If somebody was in the Union - both the postie and the rep SHOULD have time to put a case together - one way is to present copies of the Hospital Paperwork - that would be checked by RM again that's due to pressure .

Too much politics and over complication with RM - one size doesn't fit all as we all know ,RM are great at turning things into unmitigated disasters that should never have happened .

[madelin4]

The chances of dismissal at this meeting are very low. It states in the Attendance Procedure that all absences due to DDA should be discounted. Therefore, unless your chap has been told in wiritng that they are going to consider his absences under the attendance procedure because his absences have been seen to be managerially unacceptable, then you will win any tribunal going.

My prediction is that the outcome of the stage 3 is that they will tell him that the previous absences have been unacceptable and that from this point forward, the terms of the attendance procedure will be varied as a "reasonable adjustment" under the DDA. Therefore, a level of absences higher than the standard will apply in future.

if he is sacked, then on the basis of what you've said on here being completely correct, you have a genuinley bombproof tribunal case. RM are not that stupid.

Tall guy has it spot on.

A man in my office is DDA and he had a lot of time off, and i do mean a LOT. He eventually got a letter to say future DDA will now be counted. He was not happy i must say. You should be ok as you have not had such a letter yet.

[norbert]

The chances of dismissal at this meeting are very low. It states in the Attendance Procedure that all absences due to DDA should be discounted. Therefore, unless your chap has been told in wiritng that they are going to consider his absences under the attendance procedure because his absences have been seen to be managerially unacceptable, then you will win any tribunal going.

My prediction is that the outcome of the stage 3 is that they will tell him that the previous absences have been unacceptable and that from this point forward, the terms of the attendance procedure will be varied as a "reasonable adjustment" under the DDA. Therefore, a level of absences higher than the standard will apply in future.

if he is sacked, then on the basis of what you've said on here being completely correct, you have a genuinley bombproof tribunal case. RM are not that stupid.

Tall guy has it spot on.

A man in my office is DDA and he had a lot of time off, and i do mean a LOT. He eventually got a letter to say future DDA will now be counted. He was not happy i must say. You should be ok as you have not had such a letter yet.

obviously RM have reason to believe he's playing on it and it does happen sometimes , that's their anxiety if you will - however there's managers with some very colourful sick records but that's embarrassing - the colourful one " Tackleberry " that had flu when he moved house - how unlucky can you get must have been awful for him

[fmrPOSTIE]

OP. how did Friday's meeting go?

[dvbuk55]

Regardless of your OH not being a member of the union he was entitled to be represented at all the meetings and could have asked the CWU Rep to accompany him on a personal basis. Failing that then a.n.other who had some experience in these matters would suffice - OH has presumably not taken a third party in with him and so has only the word of RM as to what has or has not occurred.

Someone has already suggested a meeting with a solicitor versed in employment law who will take a look at the paperwork and , as is usually the case, there is a middle and a muddle he will find it. He could then advise you on the best course of action and maybe even write a letter to RM giving them due notice of any action should OH be dismissed.

[norbert]

Regardless of your OH not being a member of the union he was entitled to be represented at all the meetings and could have asked the CWU Rep to accompany him on a personal basis. Failing that then a.n.other who had some experience in these matters would suffice - OH has presumably not taken a third party in with him and so has only the word of RM as to what has or has not occurred.

Someone has already suggested a meeting with a solicitor versed in employment law who will take a look at the paperwork and , as is usually the case, there is a middle and a muddle he will find it. He could then advise you on the best course of action and maybe even write a letter to RM giving them due notice of any action should OH be dismissed.

that's it , they'''ll close ranks to make everything look " straight " , it's obvious that the ATOS Doctor is doing that for them but in reality it looks like a we would like to sack him case but a doctor would flush him out and it wouldn't stand up in court on Planet RM .

I've seen cases in another service when the Area Personnel Manager has said to someone - " let us sack you , you'll get all your benefits " , needless to say it didn't go down well with the Union , naturally all the Area Personnel Manager was interested in was keeping the pressure off himself .

[spilie]

Hi, many thanks for your replies.

Unfortunately OH is not in the CWU.
My head hurts from all of this

Best wishes an all that but ,WHY NOT. Obviously "it'll never happen to me" does not apply in hubbies case

Oh yes, what a helpful post

What you give is what you get,Jack