Stripped For Evidence.

[madelin4]

Im shocked cant believe the actions of your DOM. This is a disgraceful act of stripping you of your dignity how dare they do this to you,who do they think they are.

R/M is a place of work not a concentration camp.

Tomorrow get in touch with your rep tell him you want him to get in touch with the area or divisonal rep to make an offical complaint asap do not be fobbed by him this is the road you wish to go down. Ask your rep to speak to the DSM or SOM these are the bosses of your manager. Have you considered seeking legal advice if you are in the union you can ring i think simpson/millar solicitors and they will give you sound advice. Ring the B/H line aswell tomorrow and get in documented by them. And my last advice possibly ring the police whether any laws been broken i do not know maybe after talking to the unions solicitors this would be made more clear to you.

Document now whilst its fresh in your mind the sequence of events have you any witnesses .

Please do not let this lie this is totally unacceptable by a DOM to do this they have no authority to ask you to strip.


Well said Monkeyboy aswell Total disgrace what that toss of a dom done..

Madelin my feeling exactly but you said it in fewer words

Please can you keep us posted on how you get on Good Luck and stay strong

[madelin4]

Jenny. Just asking someone close to me who works for government, he says also as another person on here said it is harrasment 100%. It would of mayb been ok if the person was a first aider etc etc, but she was not!! Making me mad still this.. take all the good advice here you fellow workers have given and get her well put in her place..OUT! is where she should be

[norbert]

QUOTE - R/M is a place of work not a concentration camp.

This is the problem , too instuitionalized

Also some women in charge or in general can be absolute cows with other women - knowing which buttons to press

[opgpat]

she then asked me to go to the ladies toilet where she asked me to drop my trousers so she could look for here self,

Any complaint you make will pivot on this 'asked' buisness. When she 'asked' you did you feel it was a request/direction/demand as opposed to a genuine question? If you felt it was a direction and so you had to comply as she is your superior then you did not go willingly and your human rights have been abused and she has committed gross misconduct. Even if you had agreed willingly she should have taken a third party/independant person to make sure everything was above board in such a delicate situation. Totally unprofessional at the very least.

[MinisterofCucumber]

This may be a coincidence.

My rep told me today that a union enforcer from HQ is coming down to our cash centre to talk to us all about the introduction of the "cashless cash centre." This will mean that staff are prohibited from bringing cash into work and are subject to spot checks. The rep seemed very worried.

I have done a bit of digging and it looks like RM are trying to stretch the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 2000 that allows some types of public authorities to be exempt from complying with the European Convention on Human Rights. Maybe Mandelson and Crozier are trying a sneaky way to get a court to decide that RM is not a public authority.

I think that your right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) has been breached. If RM argue that they are not obliged to comply with ECHR, you can argue that you are being deprived of redress for a breach of your substantive Convention rights incorporated under the Human Rights Act. Wainwright and another (Appellants) v. Home Office (Respondents) might help.

The union should be supporting you all the way and getting its lawyers involved now.

I would still take the grievance route as this will give you the shortest distance to an employment tribunal. Make sure you apply for a hearing straight away, you always have the option to cancel. Remember to state that you want your manager to be taken down the conduct code. They won't do this and that means you can quickly pass through stages 2 and 3 to the Employment Tribunal. The quicker you can get a hearing, the less time the opposition has to prepare.

The union could cut them off at the pass by making compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights a condition of the latest agreement.

[brothermagrew]

Totally unwarranted, unprofessional and undignified request for a manager to make. A gross invasion of one's privacy.

On reading all the posts on this thread so far it has not been made clear by the originator on what the final outcome was, i.e. was an AOD recorded by this very manager via the ERICA system or not.

To my mind no manager has the authority to ask any employee to remove any item of clothing for the purpose of which the originating post was intended.

In defining:
An intimate search means a search which consists of the physical examination of a person’s body orifices. A strip search is a search involving the removal of more than outer clothing.

[La Poste]

The conduct code has a very specific defintion of bullying and harassment.
Bullying:
"Bullying is intimidation on a regular and persistant basis or as a one off which serves to undermine the competence, effectiveness, confidence and integrity of the person on the receiving end. A bully misuses his or her power, position or knowledge to criticise, humiliate and destroy a subordinate, a colleague or their manager".

Harassment:
"inappropriate and unwanted behavour that could reasonably be perceived by the recipient or any other person as affecting their dignity. This behavour may focus on a person's age, creed, disability, nationality, race, sex, sexual orientation, family status, religion or any other personal charcteristic, that may affect the dignity of any individual or group of individuals at work".

The key to this is how the behavour is perceived by the recipient, it has nothing to do with the intentions of the person doing the alleged bullying it is how it is perceived by the recipient.
It sounds like your manager misused her power and if you felt humiliated by this then the bullying and harassment proceedure should apply.
It doesn't matter what your manager says to justify her actions, it is how you felt that counts.
This is just my opinion.

[jaja]

If it has offended you I would put in a greivence against your dom,
this does not sound right to me.... to be asked to roll up your trouser leg to have a look yes, but to be asked to drop your strides no no no
wheres the first aider??

[La Poste]

Continuing on from my previous post:
If you put in a complaint against bullying and harassment you will trigger a proceedure that can be very serious for the manager in question.
It will be sent out of the office and will go out of yours and her control.
The Royal Mail being what it is, her manager colleagues will probably start to back her up and all the brown nosers, ass kissers and general management lackeys may well start treating you differently. You may begin to feel isolated. Not many people will come to your aid because they will be worried that they may become the next outcast.
Also, as has been mentioned before, the sting in the tail is if the complaint is unfounded you yourself may get taken down the conduct code for a false allegation, that is why witnesses are essential.
A gentler approach IMO is better because it could be dealt with informally but a note of the incident can be kept by you and then if any further incidents happen with this manager you are allready in a winning position, you can use this first incident as proof of an ongoing problem you have with her or better still she has a problem with you.
Royal Mail love to try to keep history on people, if management have cause to discipline you they will allways keep a note of it and if a further incident in the future happens they will use this initial discipline against you. Play their own games and keep your own records on them. It's a dirty game but it's the way of the Royal Mail.
This is only my opinion, your office may be different and people may support you if you put in a complaint against her.
My opinion could be overly biased and cynical, it is the result of many years spent in the Royal Mail.

[norbert]

[quote="MinisterofCucumber"]This may be a coincidence.

My rep told me today that a union enforcer from HQ is coming down to our cash centre to talk to us all about the introduction of the "cashless cash centre." This will mean that staff are prohibited from bringing cash into work and are subject to spot checks. The rep seemed very worried.

I have done a bit of digging and it looks like RM are trying to stretch the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 2000 that allows some types of public authorities to be exempt from complying with the European Convention on Human Rights. Maybe Mandelson and Crozier are trying a sneaky way to get a court to decide that RM is not a public authority.

When I worked in the Licensed Trade we were not allowed to have any money on your person . Somebody could complain they'd been diddled and as you had whatever cash in your pocket , you couldn't prove it was yours and you'd get the sack for dishonesty . There's even firms where the Uniforms didn't have pockets .

In a non union place they used to have Guards at Reception but there was a procedure if they wanted to do a bag search , I doubt if they'd powers for physical searches .

[MinisterofCucumber]

Norbert,

At the moment, managers are not allowed to search us, there is no need to, cameras are watching us all the time. Searches could only happen if the terms of our contract are changed. These terms can be changed through collective bargaining but I can't understand why the union would agree to introduce a change that removes our right to privacy. Afterall, we pay the union to maintain and improve our terms and conditions not make them worse.

In the past, the union has always resisted management attempts to introduce searches. I can't see why they are going to the trouble of sending down someone from HQ to talk to us. My rep says that he wrote down his objection but believes we have no choice but to accept. I hope HQ are not sending someone down to convince us to accept the management's agenda. With the recent court ruling it should be easy to defend our right to privacy.

If the union changes my contract for the worst, can I do anything about it or am I obliged to drop my trousers and take the rubber glove?

[Pat Ostman]

Afterall, we pay the union to maintain and improve our terms and conditions not make them worse.

Wish the top dogs at the CWU believed that

[Exrep]

Just read La.Postes thread (quote) If you put in a complaint against bullying and harassment you will trigger a proceedure that can be very serious for the manager in question.
It will be sent out of the office and will go out of yours and her control.

Bear this in mind as this happened in our office ( not same incident) Make sure you ask for the grievance to be dealt with by a DOM from an office far afield not from a neighboring office. More than likely or not the DOM will be friends with the DOM in question resulting in a biased opinion to there final outcome,there will be no more said on the matter and it will be swept under the carpet. As the matter is so serious you can not afford this to happen.

[k979aaa]

Too the original poster it is not for you to prove the fact of what happened you would not admit liability if someone crashed into you would you?. Royalmails fact finding is about absolving themselves of blame and putting that blame up on you!. WHY WAS THE CAR PARK NOT GRITTED?. As for taking down your particulars to view the evidence is beyond all credibility like a bruise will show so soon!. It is an invasion of your privacy and as such you should get a HR1 form from your union rep ASAP and pursue this to a conclusion!.

[norbert]

Too the original poster it is not for you to prove the fact of what happened you would not admit liability if someone crashed into you would you?. Royalmails fact finding is about absolving themselves of blame and putting that blame up on you!. WHY WAS THE CAR PARK NOT GRITTED?. As for taking down your particulars to view the evidence is beyond all credibility like a bruise will show so soon!. It is an invasion of your privacy and as such you should get a HR1 form from your union rep ASAP and pursue this to a conclusion!.

the excuse they used to use was Snow / Ice in the car park was a " Act Of God " - I thought it was frozen water & a hazard but you do learn something new everyday .

It's " Through the Looking Glass " stuff .