Craig Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 I've got a meeting tonight with my manager as 15 jobs (out of 29) are being cut from the shift i work. I'm just wondering if anyone knows where abouts i stand with regard to the legal side of things. The Selection Process Basically, they've a set criteria to award us points. Those with the most points fill spaces 1-15, and those with lesser points fill spaces 16-29. If you're in spaces 1-15, you're gone. The points system is as follows. - Attendance (1 point for every period of absence in the last year, regardless of the length of absence) - Punctuality (1 point per late) - Skill and Competency ( Rated 0-5. 5 being useless, 0 being superb) - Discipline (1 point per disciplinary) Basically, ur management have marked everyone as 0 for the latter three criteria, meaning selection is soley based upton attendance. Should there be a tie, the person who has been at the company longer shall be placed higher (similar to goal difference, hah). So now we've got a situation where people in the higher places of the first 15 are being made redundant based upon one days/periods absence. My situation My Situation is that i've had two days off in the past year, so it's fairly inevitable that i'm on my way out tonight (despite being there 5 years!). However, one of my days off was due to an injury caused at work. It was doneon a shift i was doing them as a favour. Surely they can't count this as one of my absences can they? I'm still having problems with my foot now (2 months later). If i'm made redundant based upon this, can i sue for loss of earnings or anything? (As with one absence, i'd probably JUST stay due to the length of service). Or even appeal against the decision? I put the injury on record when i did it, and there was simply no way i could work with my foot like it, they sent me home! And said i could have as much time off as i needed with it, i had one day off and then i worked through the pain barrier for them. My other gripe is that i am trained and able to do far more things within the store in comparison to the majority. Yet we're all rated at the same skill level of 0, surely this isn't right either!? Any advice before i go into my meeting would be greatly appreciated.
Guest Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 I've got a meeting tonight with my manager as 15 jobs (out of 29) are being cut from the shift i work.I'm just wondering if anyone knows where abouts i stand with regard to the legal side of things. The Selection Process Basically, they've a set criteria to award us points. Those with the most points fill spaces 1-15, and those with lesser points fill spaces 16-29. If you're in spaces 1-15, you're gone. The points system is as follows. - Attendance (1 point for every period of absence in the last year, regardless of the length of absence) - Punctuality (1 point per late) - Skill and Competency ( Rated 0-5. 5 being useless, 0 being superb) - Discipline (1 point per disciplinary) Basically, ur management have marked everyone as 0 for the latter three criteria, meaning selection is soley based upton attendance. Should there be a tie, the person who has been at the company longer shall be placed higher (similar to goal difference, hah). So now we've got a situation where people in the higher places of the first 15 are being made redundant based upon one days/periods absence. My situation My Situation is that i've had two days off in the past year, so it's fairly inevitable that i'm on my way out tonight (despite being there 5 years!). However, one of my days off was due to an injury caused at work. It was doneon a shift i was doing them as a favour. Surely they can't count this as one of my absences can they? I'm still having problems with my foot now (2 months later). If i'm made redundant based upon this, can i sue for loss of earnings or anything? (As with one absence, i'd probably JUST stay due to the length of service). Or even appeal against the decision? I put the injury on record when i did it, and there was simply no way i could work with my foot like it, they sent me home! And said i could have as much time off as i needed with it, i had one day off and then i worked through the pain barrier for them. My other gripe is that i am trained and able to do far more things within the store in comparison to the majority. Yet we're all rated at the same skill level of 0, surely this isn't right either!? Any advice before i go into my meeting would be greatly appreciated. My advice is to contact ACAS Good luck! You're not the only one.
Lillehamring Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 surely an 'absence' has to be classed as where you have chosen to take time off? either way, your company is a fucking disgrace - sounds like they didn't have the bottle to sack people on ability and have waived all decision making responsibilty by using absence as the only criteria. and - seriously? - do you really have discipline and tardiness demerits! that's like being at some kind of public school or something, shocking. who do you work for?
Craig Posted 19 March 2009 Author Posted 19 March 2009 surely an 'absence' has to be classed as where you have chosen to take time off?either way, your company is a fucking disgrace - sounds like they didn't have the bottle to sack people on ability and have waived all decision making responsibilty by using absence as the only criteria. and - seriously? - do you really have discipline and tardiness demerits! that's like being at some kind of public school or something, shocking. who do you work for? I'm not going to say on here, as i don't want to get into any trouble, yet. But they're a fairly big company, with probably over 3000 jobs going in total. Im very surprised it hasn't been in the papers etc.
Sir Fynwy Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 surely an 'absence' has to be classed as where you have chosen to take time off?either way, your company is a fucking disgrace - sounds like they didn't have the bottle to sack people on ability and have waived all decision making responsibilty by using absence as the only criteria. and - seriously? - do you really have discipline and tardiness demerits! that's like being at some kind of public school or something, shocking. who do you work for? It's an easy criteria to judge and doesn't involve much scope for challenge, the managers won't want to lay themselves liable to claims by making 'judgements' on peoples ability. If they had any sense they'd use things like training records to assess skills and how useful workers are.
davieG Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 If you are all classed as numpties then I think they should sack the management for employing you all, seriously as Lisa said contact ACAS but do it quickly because it's much easier to deal with before they've made any official announcements, that's when intransigence sets in.
Alexikokopops Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 If you are all classed as numpties then I think they should sack the management for employing you all, seriously as Lisa said contact ACAS but do it quickly because it's much easier to deal with before they've made any official announcements, that's when intransigence sets in. They're all classified as "superb"
Jon the Hat Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 Contact your HR representative before the meeting and tell them you want to ensure that the absence caused by the lost time injury you sustained at work will not count against you. If it were me I would avoid mentioning anything about any kind of action against the company. If they say it is included then I would point out that absences which were potentially caused by a Health and Safety issue in the workplace should not be counted in the process and ask for them to review it as a matter of urgency. If they still say no then maybe ask them to show you the actions which have been put in place to stop that kind of injury occruing again, as you are concerned that other staff members might be at risk. Ask for a copy of the incident report. At the very least you can show it to your manager.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 surely an 'absence' has to be classed as where you have chosen to take time off?either way, your company is a fucking disgrace - sounds like they didn't have the bottle to sack people on ability and have waived all decision making responsibilty by using absence as the only criteria. and - seriously? - do you really have discipline and tardiness demerits! that's like being at some kind of public school or something, shocking. who do you work for? Agreed. And seriously, 2 days off sick in the past year... out of 29 people? Surely there must be worse people than you. Plus what happens if you broke a leg in the past year - or some other serious injury? You would have probably had weeks off, through no fault of your own - whereas someone who had "thrown-a-sickie" would probably had the odd day off (invariably a Monday or Friday or day before/after a bank holiday). As Val said, an "absence" should only be when you have chosen to have time off, rather than unavoidable time off.
Head Honcho Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 I'm not going to say on here, as i don't want to get into any trouble, yet. But they're a fairly big company, with probably over 3000 jobs going in total. Im very surprised it hasn't been in the papers etc. Wilkos? Had to dish out the bad news to our night and morning shifts on Monday and Tuesday.
davieG Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 They're all classified as "superb" That makes me the numpty then.
Alexikokopops Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 That makes me the numpty then. You'd definitely be getting a 5!
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 Could be worse, been there 5 years they'll have to pay you a wedge at least.
Monk Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 Probably something in the European Convention of Human Rights on this. Shake the book at them and squeeze every last pennie you can out of the mofos. That's a horrendous way to deal with redundancies, and even poorer for them to disclose the criteria to staff.
Guest Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 Probably something in the European Convention of Human Rights on this. Shake the book at them and squeeze every last pennie you can out of the mofos. That's a horrendous way to deal with redundancies, and even poorer for them to disclose the criteria to staff. I'm afraid the ECHR doesn't cover work; it's a protection of civil and political rights, despite some of the stupid arguments some try to make. EU rules also only apply to public authorities, or emanations of.
cisono Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 The points system is as follows.- Attendance (1 point for every period of absence in the last year, regardless of the length of absence) - Punctuality (1 point per late) - Skill and Competency ( Rated 0-5. 5 being useless, 0 being superb) - Discipline (1 point per disciplinary) What a terrible system! And how can attendance be rated on par with discipline? And being late (perhaps 5 minutes, due to a good reason, such as someone hitting your car on the way to work) be rated the same as a disciplinary procedure against someone? This scheme was dreamt up by someone fairly incompetent at their job, I'd fire the managers
breadandcheese Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 Probably something in the European Convention of Human Rights on this. Shake the book at them and squeeze every last pennie you can out of the mofos. That's a horrendous way to deal with redundancies, and even poorer for them to disclose the criteria to staff. If you're making redundancies, you have to disclose your asessment criteria in order to show it is a fair redundancy process. Unfortunately, employment law is a load of balls that serves no group of people (employer or employee) particularly well. I would say that this assessment process is not strictly fair so there would be a case of unfair dismissal to answer. If your absenteeism was as a work related accident that was not your fault, and this was used against you as an assessment criterion, then the redundancy procedure would be prejudiced against you (thus you could claim unfair dismissal). There are also question marks about using length of service as the deciding factor as this could be considered age discrimination in favour of those who are older (and thus have worked there longer). I think there was some ruling made about using this as part of a selection criteria so you would have to check the ruling on this.
Head Honcho Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 Probably something in the European Convention of Human Rights on this. Shake the book at them and squeeze every last pennie you can out of the mofos. That's a horrendous way to deal with redundancies, and even poorer for them to disclose the criteria to staff. I think you'll find it's the unions who demanded the redundancy criteria. If as I suspect this is Wilkinsons he's talking about then he's not actually telling us all the full story.
MPH Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 would be intresting to know the outcome of this. I think its fair to say though that your bosses, if you are sacked, could be sued for this.
Head Honcho Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 would be intresting to know the outcome of this.I think its fair to say though that your bosses, if you are sacked, could be sued for this. I'm sure a company large enough to be planning on making 3000 workers redundant has taken sufficient legal advice, don't you?
stez Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 i hate big companies. i've never worked for one, and i never want to. all the best, craig.
Kilworthfox Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 i hate big companies. i've never worked for one, and i never want to.all the best, craig.
stez Posted 19 March 2009 Posted 19 March 2009 believe me, my bosses are pretty far from being socialists!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.