Grievance procedures failing

Acas has this week published the results of research into the impact of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and the Religion or Belief Regulations 2003.

The report, commissioned by the DTI, found that workplace discrimination allegations regarding sexual orientation were dominated by claims of bullying and harassment including name-calling, verbal threats, intimidation and physical assaults. Many religion and belief employment tribunal claims also included instances of bullying or harassment.

Another key finding was that grievance procedures were found to be an unsatisfactory arrangement for resolving employees' complaints. [We had to wait for ACAS to discover this!]

"For a majority, dispute resolution procedures were seen to be flawed, often exacerbating the experience of discrimination rather than resolving it," said the report. [Fascinating news!]

"One strong theme among both sets of claimants was the tendency of their employers to respond to their complaint by seeing them as the problem, rather than the victim of unfair treatment." [Even more fascinating news!]

Acas's Rita Donaghy said: "These 2003 Employment Equality Regulations provide a further step forward in outlawing discrimination in our workplaces. This is the first time since the new regulations came into force that sexual orientation and religion or belief at work has been subject to research. The findings shed new light on these issues both from the employees and employers perspective."

In light of the review findings, the Government has now issued a consultation document aimed at improving the way employment disputes are resolved. [We are holding our breath!]

From: http://www.clickdocs.co.uk/news/view.asp?ID=212

Incompetence: The Top of the Food Chain

The easiest way to become incompetent is "Incompetence By Promotion". This happens when you are hired into a job that you are well suited for. Once hired, you must find a way to be promoted in order to become more incompetent. The first promotion is the hardest, but once you convince (or threaten) management into promoting you, you are well on your way to incompetence.

Once you are promoted, your intelligence increases ten-fold. You now know at least fifteen times more than the person recently promoted to your job. While this may seem good, your next promotion is far, far more exciting. You must make another promotion the most important thing in your life. For once you are promoted again, your intelligence becomes ONE HUNDRED times as great. Yes, you now know 115 times as much as the new person promoted to do your first job. See how ignorant they are. They have no idea what they are doing. Tell them so. Make sure they are doing what you think is best, because you are far, far more intelligent than they are.

This method of promotion has a cascading effect. Those promoted behind you to fill the voids left by your promotion are even less qualified than you, and have been promoted up the ladder into jobs they now have no clue how to do. Only you, with your magnificent intelligence is qualified to tell them what to do. Don't let up - your goal is to be the top. Keep those promotions coming, even if it means killing off those higher-up than you. For one day...

The top of the Food Chain. You made it. You now sit in the big leather chair, behind the huge wooden desk, in the biggest office, with the nicest view. How smart are you? Your intelligence can no longer be compared to those below you. This level of intelligence has had a special term reserved for it: Incompetence. If you take time out of your important day to pay attention to what your worm-like subordinates say, you are likely to hear them describe you as such. When you tell them they are doing it wrong, when you chastise them for their asinine decisions, when you give them an order which is the *only* way to do something, they will praise your magnificence. You are the embodiment of Incompetence.

From: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Incompetence

The Art of War - By Sun Tzu

• According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one's plans.

• All warfare is based on deception.
  
  
• Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
  
  
• Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
  
  
• If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
  
  
• If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
  
  
• If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.
  
  
• Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
  
  
• These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.
  
  
• The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Our Poll: How effective is your university's anti-bullying policy?

The results of our poll - so far - show that anti-bullying policies are not at all effective or non-existent. Of course the results can only be indicative. However, it is worth noting that from the 70 votes cast only 2 describe them as 'very effective'. Considering how diverse the voters are, this is worrying.

Please cast your vote and perhaps suggest a question for the next poll which we hope to start in May 2007.

Hypotheses are true...

Anonymous said:

In the midst of experimenting with the following laws I have found that their hypotheses are true at Wolverhampton.

In particular:

• Skorupski's Law: The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality.

• Farlie's Law: If in one's professional career one reaches a position way above what is merited, then one can only maintain this position or progress further by surrounding oneself with incompetent people.

Farlie's extensions:

1. If the people surrounding you are not incompetent, filter their every communication so that they appear incompetent and that you've rescued them.

2. If you are/have been the servant of one, then it is reasonable to assume that you will be the one in the future.

Further research and experimentations:

Please, add other locations and subjects observed so that if a significant number of cases are detected they can become published in a relevant conference. ;-)

-----------------------------------
There are of course 'The Peter Principle', stated as "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", and

'The Dilbert Principle', stating that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management (generally middle management), in order to limit the amount of damage that they're capable of doing.

The 'Max Rangers Principle' (a new one), states that when called to account, make up anything spontaneously to fit the needs at that moment.

And an extension to the 'Max Rangers Principle': to be a convincing and practised liar, feign victimhood when held accountable, usually by bursting into tears or claiming you're the one being bullied and harassed.

Developing a Dignity at Work/Bullying and Harassment Policy

One of the key methods of starting to tackle the issues could be the introduction of a dignity at work or bullying/harassment policy. When doing so, it is important to be clear about your objectives. A policy fulfils a number of important functions within an organisation, such as ensuring equity and fair treatment and indicating a recognition of the seriousness of the issue being addressed.

You should clarify the scope of the policy, whether it relates to staff, students, visitors, contractors, or any combination of these. Where there are separate policies for each group, they should be comprehensive and consistent. One policy that covers all circumstances avoids the difficulties of deciding which policy and procedure to use when dealing with cases, and will enable your institution to promote one recognised standard of conduct for all, as your policy should include examples of unacceptable behaviour.

The policy should also outline relative responsibilities, including those of bystanders or witnesses, and should provide guidance on the procedures to be followed, and sources of help available, in the event of bullying or harassment. There should be a clear distinction between the informal and formal procedures and the aim should generally be to resolve issues at the informal stage, if at all possible, as this is usually the complainant’s preferred initial course of action and enables resolution with as little long-term damage as possible.

Any policy should be jointly developed with the recognised trade unions. Most institutions will involve the unions at the consultation stage, but if you have been working in partnership throughout the development of the policy, not only will the unions be committed to making it work, but they will be able to offer you helpful insights from their perspective on your own institution and any specific issues that may need to be addressed.

In order to be useful, any policy needs to be comprehensible and easy to read, but it is surprising how often policies are written without any regard to plain English. It is also clear that employees need to be aware of where to find details of the policy and how to access advice and help in using it.

However, any policy is only as good as its implementation. Management commitment is essential to making policy development a reality within the institution. You should make sure that you do not put so much effort into writing the perfect policy that you have no resources left to make it work effectively. Organisations often argue that they do not have sufficient resources to effectively deal with bullying and harassment, but with top level commitment it can be done.

From: Dignity at Work - Good Practice Guide for Higher Education

Bad Apple Bullies website

Workplace bullying highest in Irish Public Sector - Ireland

Tony Killeen, Minister for Labour Affairs today published the results of two national surveys relating to workplace bullying, one of workers, ie, individuals at work including employees and self employed who have experienced workplace bullying, and, the other of employers in both the public and private sectors.

The main points which emerged from the surveys were:

• The survey of those at work finds that, overall, 7.9% reported that they had experienced bullying within the past 6 months. This compares with 7% in the 2001 survey.

• In both surveys women are shown to be more at risk, 10.7% in 2007 as against 5.8% for men. The 2001 figures were 9.5% and 5.3% respectively.

• A substantially higher percentage of employees, both men and women, report experiencing bullying by comparison with those who are self-employed - 8.9% v 2.9%.

• Those with higher levels of educational attainment are more likely to report experiencing bullying in the workplace - 9.5% who have completed third level as against 4.4% of those who have completed the Junior Certificate.

• The incidence rate in the public sector is higher than in the private sector.

• The highest rates of bullying are in Education, Public Administration, Health and Social Work.

• In terms of organisation size the highest rates are in medium sized and large organisations.

• Workers are at greater risk of experiencing bullying at work where there was management or organisational change, over 11% compared to 6.2% of those who had not had management or organisational change.

The public and private sector Employer Survey showed that -

• Bullying is more likely to be perceived as a problem in the public sector than in the private sector.

• It is more likely to be perceived as a problem in larger rather than in smaller organisations.

• Public sector organisations more likely to report that bullying by colleagues and by clients is a problem.

• Public sector organisations are more likely to report having a formal policy on workplace bullying in their organisations than those in the private sector.

• Public sector organisations are also more familiar with the Codes of Practice than those in the private sector.

• Procedures in place to deal with workplace bullying are much more prevalent in public sector organisations than in the private sector.

Killeen said that it was disappointing to see that the incidence figure has remained largely the same despite the increase in the level of awareness of the effects of bullying and its negative impact and the existence of Codes of Practice. He said that the fact that only around half of all organisations report that they have heard of Codes of Practice and are aware of their requirements is a concern. He added that he will shortly be announcing a revised Code of Practice developed by the Health and Safety Authority.

Another concern mentioned by Killeen arose from a point which emerged from the survey on the lack of a formal policy on workplace bullying in organisations more so in the private sector than in the public sector. The Minister said this points to the fact that the risk is not being identified and assessed which in itself is being negligent in a duty to those at risk. “I would advocate that in all workplaces any risks in regard to bullying should be identified and assessed and the policies should be put in place to deal with them” he said.

In regard to the public sector, Killeen said, “I am concerned that the survey of those at work shows that the incidence of bullying, whether by managers, subordinates, colleagues or clients is highest in the public sector. In fact, 39% of public sector employers regard bullying of colleagues to be a problem, which many people will consider a surprisingly high level. I am calling today on managers in the public sector to recognise that they have a problem on their hands and to set about addressing it without delay. They have a legal duty to do so under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.”

From: http://www.finfacts.com

Conducting Investigations - UK

The way in which any investigation is conducted will be a key element in the success of your dignity at work strategy – there is no point in introducing a comprehensive policy, training a network of harassment advisers and communicating widely and successfully if you do not have good, fair and transparent procedures for conducting investigations into complaints.

Such investigations are very sensitive and there should be procedures separate from your normal disciplinary and grievance procedures to investigate such complaints, using people who have had specific training in investigating bullying and harassment complaints. You should bear in mind that many complainants and witnesses will be fearful not simply about the outcome but about any repercussions of making the complaint in the first place and they should be reassured that the institution will protect them and make every effort to deal effectively with the aftermath and minimise trauma after the investigation has taken place and the outcome is known.

Therefore you should consider:

• Providing compulsory training for investigators and panel members;

• Ensuring that the investigation is conducted by two people, to gain the maximum benefit from the interviews. If you have investigators who are relatively new, try to team them with someone who has a lot of experience.

• Dealing with complaints in a sensitive, objective manner, respecting the rights of all parties involved;

• Keeping all the participants, including the witnesses, well briefed about the process and ensure that everyone involved is aware of how the findings will be communicated. Ensure that both the accused and the complainant are aware of what information they will receive at the conclusion of the investigation.

• Maintaining confidentiality – this is particularly important in a small institution, where the parties are likely to be well known to many other employees;

• Ensuring that complainants and witnesses are fully protected from victimisation. It is not sufficient to state in your policy that those concerned will be protected – you must have robust systems in place to ensure that this actually happens in the event of an allegation of bullying or harassment.

• Using open questions to elicit the facts of the case and ensure that all questions are as neutral as possible. In particular, try to avoid questions that appear to allocate blame, which will make the respondent overly defensive and will obscure the facts.

• Concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timescale;

• Making every effort to ensure, if possible, that the investigatory team and the panel are balanced in terms of race, gender, etc (this is particularly important in cases where sexual/racial harassment are at issue). Members of the Investigatory team and panels should also include staff from all levels of the institution and represent both support and academic staff.

From: Dignity at Work - A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education

Employee claims she was unfairly dismissed for being a witch

A teaching assistant is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed because of the fact that she is a witch. Sommer De La Rosa told an Employment Tribunal that her employers feared that she would “brainwash” students with her pagan beliefs.

She also claims that other teachers shunned her because of her faith. De La Rosa, who practises pagan religion Wicca, claims one teacher told her to stop wearing her pentagram necklace, a traditional pagan symbol.

She was sacked last May after nine months at Dorothy Stringer Secondary School in Brighton. While she is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed the school and Brighton and Hove Council say she was sacked because of poor attendance record and “inappropriate disclosures” to students.

The tribunal continues.

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 are designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The Regulations define religion or belief as any “religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief.

This, says Martin Brewer and Anna Youngs of Mills & Reeve Solicitors, in Workplace Law Network's Discrimination Law: Special Report, “tells us very little”. They go on to explain that the notes to the Regulations say that a religion or belief does not include any philosophical or political belief unless that belief is “similar” to a religious belief. The guidance also adds that courts and tribunals may consider a number of factors when deciding what is a “religion or belief”. For example, whether there is collective worship, whether there is a clear belief system and whether the individual’s belief is profound enough so that it affects their way of life or their view of the world.

As a note of warning Brewer and Youngs add: “It can be seen that the circumstances which can give rise to claims under the Regulations are many and varied. A wise employer will consult with his staff before implementing any change of terms or, for example, introducing a new policy, in order to ensure that it does not impinge upon their religious freedoms. That same wise employer will also be prepared to be flexible so as to avoid litigation.”

From: http://www.workplacelaw.net