Work taken off me and given to someone else

jazzyman01

Rockporkchop - actually it does - it could easily constitute a reason for constructive dismissal. Also, if it can be shown that work has been taken away to bolster someone else's job and the original person redundant shortly after - not a fair redudancy process.

SandC

I can't offer anything very constructive but I've had the same thing happen to me - despite very good appraisals and everything else, I was suddenly no longer flavour of the month and the work started drying up - I stupidly agreed to a move that incorporated another area of work but what ended up happening was the more important stuff was divvied out elsewhere.

You are in a good place where they are actually recognising the grievance procedure so if I were in your shoes I would keep on with it.

I ended up leaving before I was pushed (or exploded!).

What does make me feel a bit better is that I am not the only one this has happened to - indeed the previous incumbent of my job was shunted to one side after she made a perfectly ligitimate and minor grievance. Then another guy who had worked his socks off being a member of a team of 5 and working up to leading that time which had increased to 10 only for them to bring someone in over his head.

I actually asked my boss who I could possibly go to with a grievance and he couldn't answer me. Seeing as my main problem stemmed from one of my other bosses - his sister. :rolleyes:

qetu1357

bendix wrote: »

Yeah, there's nothing like a good grievance to put you smack-bang in the middle of the radar when it comes to restructuring time.

As a manager, who am I more likely to look at building a business case to rid of? The person who quietly gets on with their job, or the employee who is forever in the HR office, taking up their time with pseudo-grievances.

Here's a taste of the real world. In virtually EVERY restructuring or redundancy process I've been involved in, we've known months in advance who we are aiming to get rid of.

But I am (and was) already in the middle of the radar.

Since I made the original post, I have been told by someone who has heard the contents of the restructuring docuument that my post is going.

I was told previous to that by others (in the know) that my post is going.

I do agree that in every restructuring that I have seen that it is always aimed at certain people rather than certain roles.

This one is aimed at me.

My post isn't going it's just been given to someone else.

So by raising a grievance I am putting a marker down so if the worst comes to the worst (which I am 99% sure it will) it will give me ammuntion to go to tribunal. Which I will do unless I get a job elsewhere soon.

qetu1357

Have now taken the grievance to the next level.

However, management have written to me offering a date that is unsuitable to me as it is the day immediately after I return from holiday. I have asked for another date to be arranged, but they have come back to me and told me they wont move the date and they will direct to attend that date if needs be.

Is this reasonable especially as the policy states that the all parties should be considered when arranged dates and times?

jazzyman01

Why do you want to change it? As long as you are ready with your evidence etc - which you should be as you raised a grievance - then go ahead.

If your policy stated that all parties should be considered then you could point this out and give a reason why you want it to be postponed. I would not do it just because you can!

qetu1357

jazzyman01 wrote: »

Why do you want to change it? As long as you are ready with your evidence etc - which you should be as you raised a grievance - then go ahead.

If your policy stated that all parties should be considered then you could point this out and give a reason why you want it to be postponed. I would not do it just because you can!

I want to change it as it is immediately after I come back from holiday.

I don't want to spend my holiday worrying about the meeting and I want to do my prep for the meeting the day before so it is fresh in my mind.

loopy_lass

qetu1357 wrote: »

Have now taken the grievance to the next level.

However, management have written to me offering a date that is unsuitable to me as it is the day immediately after I return from holiday. I have asked for another date to be arranged, but they have come back to me and told me they wont move the date and they will direct to attend that date if needs be.

Is this reasonable especially as the policy states that the all parties should be considered when arranged dates and times?

As far as i know you are allowed to ask for another date once or twice after that they can hear the grievance without you present.

check out http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1670

hth loops

Ama

qetu1357 wrote: »

But I am (and was) already in the middle of the radar.

Since I made the original post, I have been told by someone who has heard the contents of the restructuring docuument that my post is going.

I was told previous to that by others (in the know) that my post is going.

I do agree that in every restructuring that I have seen that it is always aimed at certain people rather than certain roles.

This one is aimed at me.

My post isn't going it's just been given to someone else.

So by raising a grievance I am putting a marker down so if the worst comes to the worst (which I am 99% sure it will) it will give me ammuntion to go to tribunal. Which I will do unless I get a job elsewhere soon.

.... you should take them to ET even if you get a job elsewhere unless they redeploy you.

Ama

bendix wrote: »

Yeah, there's nothing like a good grievance to put you smack-bang in the middle of the radar when it comes to restructuring time.

As a manager, who am I more likely to look at building a business case to rid of? The person who quietly gets on with their job, or the employee who is forever in the HR office, taking up their time with pseudo-grievances.

Here's a taste of the real world. In virtually EVERY restructuring or redundancy process I've been involved in, we've known months in advance who we are aiming to get rid of.

Perhaps you guys need some training... You give HR professionals a bad name.

loopy_lass

bendix wrote: »

Yeah, there's nothing like a good grievance to put you smack-bang in the middle of the radar when it comes to restructuring time.

As a manager, who am I more likely to look at building a business case to rid of? The person who quietly gets on with their job, or the employee who is forever in the HR office, taking up their time with pseudo-grievances.

Here's a taste of the real world. In virtually EVERY restructuring or redundancy process I've been involved in, we've known months in advance who we are aiming to get rid of.

and we wonder why moral is low in the workplace and the economy and the world is in such a mess!!!