July 17, 2007
July 16, 2007
No form of accountability...
- Anonymous said...
-
I set out a complaint of bullying under an antibullying policy and grievance procedure, and was asked to justify reference to the grievance procedure. The employer considered the complaint under the antibullying policy only, which had arbitrary investigation procedures and no right of appeal. It was not upheld, and then they terminated my employment.
Policies don't always work as expected, and those with the most offensive working practices often have the best policies. They don't, however, have any form of accountability such as annual records of complaints.
Grievance procedures: the standard three-step procedure
1. Written statement
You must set out your grievance in writing (often called a step one letter). Your employers grievance procedure should say who to send your letter to. If thats the person causing the problem, or if theyve ignored previous complaints, send it to the HR department or to the persons boss.
2. Meeting
Your grievance should be looked into in a fair and unbiased way. Your employer should invite you to a meeting (sometimes called a hearing) to discuss the problem, and you should attend if you can. If there is someone else involved, they might also be there (but you should tell your employer if you are uncomfortable with this).
The meeting should be at a convenient time for you and anyone else involved. If you think you've not had enough time to prepare, ask for more time. If your employer doesnt agree (and they don't have to), you should go to the hearing, but make sure that your lack of preparation time is noted.
Gather your thoughts before the meeting. Don't be afraid to write down what it is you want to say. There is nothing wrong with reading this out at the meeting.
It is up to your employer what format the meeting takes but they will normally go through the issues that have been raised and give you the opportunity to comment. The main purpose of the meeting should be to try to establish the facts and find a way to resolve the problem. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) have a code of practice which sets out how your employer should carry out a grievance procedure.
If you ask your employer beforehand, you have a legal right to take a 'companion' (who is a colleague or trade union representative) to the meeting with you. If no colleague is willing to accompany you, and you're not a union member, ask if you can bring a family member or a Citizen's Advice Bureau worker (but your employer does not have to agree to this). The companion can present and/or sum up your case, talk on your behalf and confer with you during the hearing. They're protected from unfair dismissal or other mistreatment for supporting you.
The meeting must be at a convenient time for your companion. You can ask for a postponement of up to five days if necessary to get your chosen companion there.
You should be given notes of the meeting, and copies of any information given by other people. Unless they need to investigate further, your employer should tell you reasonably quickly what's been decided, and about your right to appeal if you're not satisfied. You might be told of the outcome verbally at first but it will usually be confirmed in writing.
3. Appeal meeting
If you're not satisfied with the decision, or you think the procedure followed was seriously flawed, you have the right to an appeal. This is usually heard by a higher level of management. If that isnt possible, your employer could ask an Acas mediator or other independent person to hear it. The appeal hearing is similar to the original meeting, and you have a right to a companion, as before.
Your employer should give you enough time to appeal. If they don't, make your appeal anyway, and say that you'll provide more information later.
If you are considering taking your issue to an Employment Tribunal you may want to appeal even if it seems pointless, because a tribunal award could be reduced if you don't.
If you cant sort out the dispute, you can get help through mediation, conciliation or arbitration, if your employer agrees to it.
How soon can you go to a tribunal if you're still not satisfied?
If your grievance is of the type which could ultimately be taken to an Employment Tribunal you must send your written grievance (step one letter) to your employer no later than three months after the date that the problem occurred.
You must then wait 28 days (starting from the date you sent the step one letter) so that our employer can deal with the matter. Then, if you're not satisfied with your employer's response, you can make your claim to an Employment Tribunal.
Some types of Employment Tribunal claims are not subject to the statutory minimum grievance procedures and have strict time limits. If you are unsure about what to do you can get help from any of the sources listed below.
Where to get help
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) offers free, confidential and impartial advice on all employment rights issues. You can call the Acas helpline on 08457 47 47 47 from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday.
Your local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) can provide free and impartial advice. You can find your local CAB office in the phone book or online.
If you are a member of a trade union you can get help, advice and support from them.
More useful links
- Guidance on the statutory minimum procedures from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (opens new window)
- Visit the Resolving Disputes homepage from the DTI (opens new window)
- Get advice from Acas on discipline and grievances at work (opens new window)
- Read the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (PDF, 327K) (opens new window)
- Help with PDF files
- Advice for employers about handling discipline and grievance issues from Business Link (opens new window)
July 14, 2007
Whistle blowing - supporting governance in higher education
All HEIs should have mechanisms through which staff or students can make allegations about perceived irregularities in the running of the institution (often referred to as public interest disclosure or 'whistleblowing'). Provided that the allegation is made lawfully, without malice and in the public interest, the position within the institution of the individual making the allegation should not be jeopardised.Annexe K of the Committee of University Chairmen Guide for Members of Governing Bodies (HEFCE 01/20) sets out good practice in dealing with whistleblowing (www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2001/01_20.htm)
From: http://www.hegovernance.ac.uk
----------------------------
So, if a staff member raises a legitimate concern regarding 'perceived irregularities' by his/her managers, the governors will be impartial, they will be objective and they will get at the bottom of all this... Yeap! And pigs fly...
Anti-workplace bullying campaign launches
London Brand Innovations has created a new campaign for the anti-workplace bullying charity the Andrea Adam Trust. The campaign, which includes outdoor, online, DM and experiential activity, will promote the charity’s Ban Bullying at Work Day, which will fall on the 7 November.
The strapline for the campaign urges workers to “speak out” by addressing the issues of workplace bullying.
The charity estimates that bullying in the workplace costs both workers and employers over £18 billion each year and said that one in four workers have experienced bullying at work.
Matt Whiteridge, operations director at Ban Bullying at Work, said: “Following last year’s successful campaign we have been inundated from businesses and from individuals. People are beginning to recognise bullying behaviours and understand their negative impact on the workplace. This year we are taking the campaign up a level to an even wider audience and encourage people to support the campaign in their own workplaces.”
The Andrea Adam Trust is a non-political, non-profit making charity operating to focus on the problems caused by bullying behaviour in the workplace.
From: http://www.mad.co.uk
July 11, 2007
Snooping ScanSafe Ltd
The most recent snooping around comes from a company called 'ScanSafe Ltd', whose mission - among others -is to:
'...to create, enforce and monitor Web usage policies. Layering real time rule-based filters with up-to-date and accurate categorization database, Web Filtering enforces your organization's acceptable usage policy, protecting you from the legal liabilities of inappropriate content... the problems associated with providing unmonitored and unregulated Internet access steadily increase. ScanSafe Web Filtering Service is fully managed and puts you in control of how your employees use the Internet. ScanSafe delivers best-of-breed filtering with streamlined configuration...'
The question to ask is which 'smart' educational institution is employing 'ScanSafe' to keep its' employees off this blog while they are at work? The answer is simple: Look at the Hall of Shame. And what a vain and useless act considering people can surf from home, internet cafes, libraries, etc. The name and shame policy followed by this blog is getting up some noses. Well, bad luck. Treat your employees with dignity and respect so we can all get a life. The idea that we will remain silent is simply not on.
July 10, 2007
Research project avoids blame or the 'quick fix'
A PDF of the study is available here:
http://www.port.ac.uk/research/workplacebullying/
filetodownload,52783,en.pdf
Matters Concerning Members of the Governing Body - Conflicts of Interest
2.20 It is central to the proper conduct of public business that chairs and members of governing bodies should act and be perceived to act impartially, and not be influenced in their role as governors by social or business relationships. Good practice requires that a member of a governing body who has a pecuniary, family or other personal interest in any matter under discussion at any meeting of the governing body or one of its committees at which he/she is present shall, as soon as practicable, disclose the fact of his/her interest to the meeting and shall withdraw from that part of the meeting.A member of the governing body is not, however, considered to have a pecuniary interest in matters under discussion merely because he/she is a member of staff or a student of the institution. Nor does the restriction of involvement in matters of direct personal or pecuniary interest prevent members of the governing body from considering and voting on proposals to insure the governing body against liabilities which it might incur.
2.21 Institutions should maintain a register of interests of all members of the governing body. The secretary and any other senior officer closely associated with the work of the governing body, for example the finance director, should also submit details of any interests. The register should be publicly available and should be kept up-to-date.
2.22 Details of the terms of appointment should be set out as appropriate in the letter of appointment, but institutions may wish to seek a signed undertaking that governors will act responsibly.
2.23 The governing body should have the power to remove any member of the governing body from office, and must do so if the member breaches the conditions of his/her appointment.
From: Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK, November 2004/40
July 07, 2007
July 05, 2007
The well-placed lie...
There is often an element of ambiguity to very skillful lies (Rosnow, 1991), making it difficult to receive disconfirming input. Disconfirmation may not even be sought, since we seem to have a tendency to want to believe the worst of people—a negativity bias (Amabile & Glazebrook, 1982) —and "to want to spit in god's eye" (J. Letvin, personal communication, 1976) — especially, perhaps, if they are above us in rank or status. Rumours and other lies are likely to be believed, and passed on to others, when the listeners are uncertain, are under stress, or are experiencing personal anxiety (Rosnow, 1991) — a situation that obtains for many faculty and students these days.
Aspects of the academic environment make it fertile soil for bumper crops of rumours and other lies. Unfortunately, students can also get caught up in the web of intrigue—as victims of coercion and of academic politics, but also as potential contributors to the violence, wittingly or unwittingly.
For a number of reasons, rumours are particularly difficult to dispel:
- For instance, the target of the rumour may not even be aware of the circulation of lies about them; they may only have noticed that people are treating them differently.
- If the target becomes aware of the lies and tries to correct the misperceptions or misinformation, they are less likely to be believed (a) because they may be perceived as being "defensive" (Ã la perceptions of Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth: "methinks the Lady doth protest too much") and (b) because primacy is more powerful in communication effectiveness than is recency (discussed in Markus & Zajonc, 1985).
- Even otherwise very intelligent people tend to believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire"; the possibility that both the smoke and the fire may have been caused by an arsonist—a psychological arsonist—seems rarely to spring to mind.
The generation and transmission of rumours is difficult to curb: like the unethical passing on of confidential information "confidentially", the transmission makes both the bearer of the tale and the recipient of the misinformation "important". Yet, left unchecked—and thereby condoned—rumours can lead to very destructive consequences for the target of this violence, the recent suicide of a McGill psychologist being a case in point (Fox, 1994). When left unchecked, the character assassination can create a climate in which two additional circumstances may obtain:
- The victim can achieve pariah status; vulnerable others, afraid of being "tarred with the same brush", may avoid being linked to or associated with the victim, thereby isolating the victim and leaving them bereft of support.
- Unscrupulous others, bent on revenge, can "justify" to themselves further violence, thereby escalating the irreversible damage.
From: Psychological violence in academia, University of Regina
This story is typical. Complainers against bullying, especially if done by a manager, rarely succeed and usually lead to dismissals. That's just a fact of life in the UK.
Best to use outside of work methods to put a stop to the bullying -- e.g. criminal charges under the protection from harassment act or private civil harassment suits against the bully him/herself.
Or better still organize your own guerilla campaign of countermeasures - e.g. exposure of the bully.
There are no employment rights left in the UK and employers know it. The Tribunals are stacked with Chairs that are biased/in the pocket of employers and precendents have been established allowng employees to be dismissed fairly if they whistleblow, on the grounds that the whistleblowing causes a 'breakdown in working relationships' -- the catch-all dismissal method these days.
This blogspot is one really good place to expose the bullies as it does have the attention of the media.