responding to written warning

Strider590

FatVonD wrote: »

Whether what they have said is true or not or whether he responds or not they presumably can't escalate it to the third stage if he keeps his nose clean and is a model employee. If he wants to keep his job that's what he needs to do.

Not true, they can normally find dirt on anyone if they look hard enough.

If they can't do that, then they start changing rules in the hope of catching you out or p!ssing you off enough to do something silly.

laurenjs88

No he was late the other 2 times again by less than 10 minutes, but that wasnt due to the weather it was just traffic/accidents/bloody tractors or roadworks and if he even thinks he's gonna be cuttign it fine he always rings his manager to let him know.

the first written warning was over having facebook on one of his monitors at work outside which is fine the muppet shouldnt of had it open outside of break.

We are not disputing the warning as such, just we want it corrected so its factual and not aload of bull.

He was seen on the passenger side of the car standing outside grabbing some drinks off the seat. so he wasnt seen in the car or driving or anything, although i did have a joke with him that i reckoned that would get him fired. he's a good worker one of the best developers they've got. in their own words its my fault really my illness makes him so ill

we will politely respond nad just clear a few things up i think just ask if it can be re-written in a factual way.

MrRedundant

It reads to me that your OH is less than the ideal staffmember who is consistently late and sick and whose attitude when challenged on this is to try and deflect the issue.

I would suggest your OH either gets his finger out and performs or finds a new job. No one has for no reason went to the hassle and expense of doing this. Every company has enough useless HR cases without making up a few more!

lucylucky

laurenjs88 wrote: »

No he was late the other 2 times again by less than 10 minutes, but that wasnt due to the weather it was just traffic/accidents/bloody tractors or roadworks and if he even thinks he's gonna be cuttign it fine he always rings his manager to let him know. So he was late, that bit is factually correct then?

the first written warning was over having facebook on one of his monitors at work outside which is fine the muppet shouldnt of had it open outside of break. A written warning in this case that he deserved and has no issue with.

We are not disputing the warning as such, just we want it corrected so its factual and not aload of bull. If there are factual inaccuracies then ask for them to be corrected. You will have to prove they are inaccurate.

He was seen on the passenger side of the car standing outside grabbing some drinks off the seat. so he wasnt seen in the car or driving or anything, although i did have a joke with him that i reckoned that would get him fired. he's a good worker one of the best developers they've got. in their own words its my fault really my illness makes him so ill I still have no idea what or why the reference to McDonalds has been included. Should he have been working when he was seen?

we will politely respond nad just clear a few things up i think just ask if it can be re-written in a factual way.

If you can prove that certain things are wrong then fine but do just stick to the facts.

laurenjs88

Just to clear a few things up, we live quite a ways away from his work and the travel includes a stetch of rarely used country roads. The times he was late because of the snow, sometimes by only 2 to 3 minutes because he had left considerably earlier to try and make sure he was in on time, where included in the written warning. This is important because everyone that works in the office from similar regions as us where also late everyday he was, including his manager. He was very rarely the last person to arrive on these days.

The other two mentioned he was late by no more than 2 minutes due to road works/a tractor taking up the road, I think accusing him of being consistently late when 8 of them where over a 2 week patch when the whole country stood still is a bit over the top...

The sick days are excessive agreed,it's not down to not being comitted or a worthless employee but that isn't what we are disagreeing with so I won't go into more detail.

The McDonald incident was on a non working day after having being off sick, he then had one more day off before returning and that is the reason they have given for mentioning it. He was seen carrying a tray of drinks from the car, that's all.

He is good at his job, his manager constantly tells him this and his appraisal was very good and was even given a payrise before this came about (instigated by the horrible woman I've mentioned before who happens to be incharge of HR) which as part of this has been suspended for 3 months.

MrRedundant

But it is an issue. Your OH chooses to live and work where he does and it is his responsibility to appear on time regardless. The company loses money and possibly more when he doesnt so really I wouldnt accept it and someone who tried to make out it didnt matter like you would make me more angry.

The sickness is an issue because its a cummulative factor. The fact you wont share the nature of the illness suggests to me he was at it and we will know fine.

Finally he can be good at his job all he wants but he actually needs to be at work to be good at it therefore If I was his manager his performance wouldnt matter if he missed a lot of time.

WhiteHorse

HR Managers (sorry, did I say personnel clerks?), are often unpleasant, jumped-up nobodies. This individual has fabricated a complaint and maliciously blown up relatively minor issues, all of which need to be countered, point by point.

Tip: Stay icy calm in these situations. Your response to the company must not be like your posts on here.

lucylucky

laurenjs88 wrote: »

[STRIKE]Just to clear a few things up, we live quite a ways away from his work and the travel includes a stetch of rarely used country roads[/STRIKE]. Irrelevant The times he was late because of the snow, sometimes by only 2 to 3 minutes because he had left considerably earlier to try and make sure he was in on time, where included in the written warning. If he was late once because of the snow then he would know how much longer he required to get into work on time, and should have done so.[STRIKE]This is important because everyone that works in the office from similar regions as us where also late everyday he was, including his manager. He was very rarely the last person to arrive on these days[/STRIKE]. Irrelevant it is not what other people did it is what he did that matters

The other two mentioned he was late by no more than 2 minutes due to road works/a tractor taking up the road, I think accusing him of being consistently late when 8 of them where over a 2 week patch when the whole country stood still is a bit over the top... If he was late once he should have taken steps to ensure that it did not happen again. More than twice is unacceptable IMO

The sick days are excessive agreed,it's not down to not being comitted or a worthless employee but that isn't what we are disagreeing with so I won't go into more detail.

The McDonald incident was on a non working day after having being off sick, he then had one more day off before returning and that is the reason they have given for mentioning it. He was seen carrying a tray of drinks from the car, that's all. Cannot see it has any relevance at all and you should ask for any reference to be removed

He is good at his job, his manager constantly tells him this and his appraisal was very good and was even given a payrise before this came about [STRIKE](instigated by the horrible woman I've mentioned before who happens to be incharge of HR)[/STRIKE] Irrelevant which as part of this has been suspended for 3 months.

As I said, keep to the facts.

Who or what has been suspended?

lucylucky

WhiteHorse wrote: »

HR Managers (sorry, did I say personnel clerks?), are often unpleasant, jumped-up nobodies. This individual has fabricated a complaint and maliciously blown up relatively minor issues, all of which need to be countered, point by point.

Tip: Stay icy calm in these situations. Your response to the company must not be like your posts on here.

HR managers are often very nice helpful people who work hard to ensure the smooth running of a company.
What are the relatively minor issues that have been "blown up"?
The long running illness issue?
The continual lateness?

Or something else?

MrRedundant

lucylucky wrote: »

As I said, keep to the facts.

Who or what has been suspended?

The payrise. Unsurprising if the OP consistently shows up late or not at all.