Facing the sack after being accused of bullying and harrasment by a 12 year old.

nicole2216

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Good advice by Myusername.

OP am I right in understanding that the second disciplinary hearing is about the same complaint that you were recently given a written warning for? If that is really the case, I can't understand the purpose of the second disciplinary, as the matter has already been dealt with.

If you are able to clarify this, it would help, as I think I may be getting confused!

Thanks

As far as I understand yes theres only been one compaint, but I have managed to rearrange the appeall hearing for 1pm on Wednesday 13, the 2nd discipline is at 2.30 on the same day. I am speaking to HR on monday morning, so hopefully between HR and the man dealing with my appeall I can figure out why and if I need the 2nd discipline. It all seems to boil down to the fact that my operations manage f*****d up (scuse language) by telling the headmaster I would not be returning to work in september, which he relayed to the parents. He has lost face to parents and has insisted I dont return to site. Im keeping my fingers crossed that HR agree I do not need another discipline and that the meeting on wednesday will be to discuss my move to another site. My ops manager told me when I asked wehter I would be sacked on wednesday as If that was the case, i would need to make other arrangements (look for another job) she said, ''no, there are other options''.

zzzLazyDaisy

The whole thing sounds like a monumental c0ck-up to me (excuse the terminology). Please keep us posted.

nicole2216

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The whole thing sounds like a monumental c0ck-up to me (excuse the terminology). Please keep us posted.

Oh I will!!! Im actually looking forward to monday morning!!! lol only cos of the phone call fromHR. I must say in my employers defence, that the fella I originally phoned by mistake has been sooo helpful. It was him that refered me to HR for advice. Its a shame hes in cornwall and im in london, because Id love to give him a great big hug. He has been the ONLY one to help. APART from you lot on here who have kept me going with your support and advice.

A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL THE MONEYSAVINGEXPERT FORUM MEMBERS

:beer: :A :T

inmypocketnottheirs

Yes the School Governers should be involed

Fingers crossed for you.

dickydonkin

lynzpower wrote: »

Exactly, I have union membership that is organised directly with the GMB,not in my workplace- I jsut phoned them and set up the DD and its tied to my home address.

I dont think it is an employers "business" in the same way an employer doesnt need to know you have legal cover on your contents insurance.

I dont think union membership is out of reach to "millions" racyred, that is nothing but a myth.

I would suggest you check your contract of employment as it may state that you have to inform the employer if you are a member of a trade union. That was a clause that was stipulated in Mrs.p's contract with her last employer - mind you - he was a complete ......:silenced:!

zzzLazyDaisy

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because that an employee is (or is not) a member of a trade union.

Any employee is entitled to be a member of a trade union. They do not have to notify their employer. If the employer refuses to employ the person, or dismisses them, or refuses to promote them for reasons relating to membership of a trade union, they are acting unlawfully and the employee would have a claim to a tribunal - the 12 month rule does not apply in this case, and protection under the law starts at the application/interview stage.

Now I do appreciate that actually proving that the employer's actions are related to the fact of union membership, and not for a completely different reason, may be another thing. But at least it is important to be aware that such conduct is against the law.

This article give some information

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1073792253&type=RESOURCES

dickydonkin

Any employee is entitled to be a member of a trade union. They do not have to notify their employer.

Would that also apply even if the disclosure requirement was incorporated into the contract of employment which was signed and agreed by the employee? This was the situation with my wife.

I am aware that an employer cannot discriminate against union membership - but this element of the contract (although suspicious) is surely not an illegal request.

lynzpower

I dont think it is an acceptable term of contract personally Dpassmore

zzzLazyDaisy

dpassmore wrote: »

Would that also apply even if the disclosure requirement was incorporated into the contract of employment which was signed and agreed by the employer? This was the situation with my wife. I am aware that an employer cannot discriminate against union membership - but this element of the contract (although suspicious) is surely not an illegal request.

If an employee fails to disclose that they are a member of a union, and the employer subsequently disciplines or dismisses them, or otherwise penalises or discriminates against them, because of their failure to inform the employer they were a member of the trade union - this would amount to unlawful discrimination, as it is less favourable treatment for a reason relating to trade union membership - In my view the employer can't side step that by putting the requirement into the contract

I'd go further and say that there is a good argument that insisting an employee signs a contract containing such a clause is in itself discriminatory, simply because there can be no good reason for the employer to want or need to keep a record of which employees are in a union, and it suggests that the employer views them in someway different to employees who are not uniom members.

Note: that is just my view - I'm not aware of any cases on this particular point (but there are other employment lawyers on this forum, so maybe someone will be along soon with more info).

RacyRed

zzzLazyDaisy, many things are illegal but there is little anyone can do to stop them.

Age discrimination is absolutely rife these days, despite laws protecting employees. According to job centre staff I have spoken to about it, they are well aware that it is commonplace, but it is so very difficult to prove that the law is, in essence, useless unless an employer has behaved in such a stupid fashion that they leave themselves wide open for prosecution. Few do.

In similar vein, union membership is open to all, but if one really wants/need a particular job then one is unlikely to rock the boat over union membership.

Lets face it - taking good legal cover with your home insurance is effectively the same as union membership for those of us working in unrepresented workplaces?

I think that the key point here is that private employers such as the one the OP works for can, in effect, do pretty much what they like and, unless the employers are seriously stupid, there is very little any of us can do about it.

It is very wrong, but it is a fact of life for many.