Employer Banning Out Of Hours Socialising!

WoodruffsDad

tbourner wrote: »

I'm sure they have their reasons, and as frustrating as it is for you both you have to either accept their rules or risk disciplinary action. I doubt very much you'd 'win' a case in court against them, since they undoubtedly have lots of evidence that shows your wife was told of this restriction and you willingly went against it. Is upsetting the working applecart for the sake of your principles really worth it for a day out?

See my post above quoted below. It's not just the visits!

"I should point out here that the council have not only banned my wife (and others who hold similar positions) from going on visits but from ALL social interaction with residents including garden fetes, coffee mornings, barbecues etc."

Banning all social interaction between manager and elderly residents will cause the residents to retreat more and interact less. It is a retrograde step for the retired population!

KiKi

This actually protects your wife and other employees.

A very good friend of mine used to work in a sheltered housing organisation for an LA, and out-of-hours socialising on more than one occasion led to accusations against staff, grievances, and problems in court from families who accused the staff of supplying alcohol or worse to those using the housing. The council have a duty of care to employees and customers. I doubt they're doing this because they just really want to pee off your wife.

It might not be in the contract, but it's been made clear that the socialising isn't acceptable. You seem very upset, but it's not like she's been banned from socialising with colleagues (which wouldn't be reasonable).

She's been told not to spend time outside of work with customers of the council who are potentially vulnerable. It protects them and her. If you have a really 'deep' interest in this heritage site then go on your own. (Or perhaps you were hoping for a lift?! )

Legality isn't relevant here. Company rules don't adhere only to the law, but internal policies and procedures. It's not illegal to drive a car, but it might be against company policy to drive a company car for personal use. It's not illegal to drink, but it might be against company policy to drink less than eight hours before coming to work. It's not illegal to socialise with customers, but if you're a counsellor then socialising with your customers outside of work would be very inappropriate.

Similarly, in this case the employer has said that staff must not socialise with potentially vulnerable customers outside of work time. I don't think that's unfair. And yes, they can apply rules about behaviour outside of work. I had a whole raft of rules from my previous employer (public sector) about what I could and could not do or say outside of work! I appreciate you might not like it, but it's not illegal.

KiKi

Becles

Is it a protection thing for your wife and the residents? It could be a way of protecting residents from employees who are not as well behaved, and also protects your wife from any allegations made by residents.

This will be a general catch all rule, not specifically against your wife and friends though, whom I'm sure are all lovely people.

DCFC79

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

I should point out here that the council have not only banned my wife (and others who hold similar positions) from going on visits but from ALL social interaction with residents including garden fetes, coffee mornings, barbecues etc.

Where is The Big Society in this?

how will they police the social interaction then, why not ask teh reason for the ban ?

maybe time to look for another job,

heretolearn_2

It may also be to do with funds. These activities are planned for the residents, not anyone else. Even if the residents are making a contribution, there will still be other costs involved, even if just the admin of organising things. Seems silly, but it could be a complaint about misuse of funds intended to go towards resident activities being used by staff. If your wife goes to a coffee morning, is she paying for her own teas and biscuits/cakes etc. Otherwise it's no different to having 20 of the blokes who work on the gardening dept turning up for refreshments, financially.

It does seem a little short sighted, but possibly residents have complained about monies meant for them being used up on staff - not necessarily about your wife, or that sheltered housing scheme, but elsewhere. Perhaps one staff member somewhere was taking the mickey and they've had to clamp down all round, same rules for all.

DVardysShadow

KiKi wrote: »

Legality isn't relevant here. Company rules don't adhere only to the law, but internal policies and procedures. It's not illegal to drive a car, but it might be against company policy to drive a company car for personal use.

Employer policies in such areas must derive from some legal basis. In your example, it derives from the employer's ownership of the car.

In the OP's case, there is a human right of free association which the council are abrogating. If they seek to do that, then I would say they need a definite legally supportable justification.

This could all get very sticky for the employer if the residents committee invite staff along anyway. And rightly so. If the residents are capable of organising their own day out, then as a group they are not entirely vulnerable.

The more I think about it the more I think this is offensive nonsense.

KiKi

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Employer policies in such areas must derive from some legal basis. In your example, it derives from the employer's ownership of the car.

Not necessarily, though. And you only quoted one of my examples and ignored the other two which aren't legally derived!

It's not illegal to drink, or be drunk. Nor do I believe (although happy to be corrected) that it's illegal to turn up to work drunk. But you can still be disciplined for it. That doesn't derive from a legal basis, it's just company policy. I wasn't allowed to drink in the eight hours before attending work, for example.

It's not illegal to tell anyone whether you vote Green, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem. But I wasn't allowed to discuss my political preferences with anyone outside of work. That's not illegal, it was just the policy of the company which was in the public sector.

So it doesn't always apply. Of course companies have to abide by the law, but not all policies are based or derived from legal requirements.

They should, though, of course, be sensible and reasonable - I agree with that.


KiKi

dmg24

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Employer policies in such areas must derive from some legal basis. In your example, it derives from the employer's ownership of the car.

In the OP's case, there is a human right of free association which the council are abrogating. If they seek to do that, then I would say they need a definite legally supportable justification.

This could all get very sticky for the employer if the residents committee invite staff along anyway. And rightly so. If the residents are capable of organising their own day out, then as a group they are not entirely vulnerable.

The more I think about it the more I think this is offensive nonsense.

Care to point to that human right?

If you are referring to the right to respect for private and family life, the employer will argue that this is not part of their private life but an extension of their professional role. Which side a court would take, I really don't know, but I would guess that they would take a cautious approach due to the issue relating to vulnerable individuals.

SueC_2

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

Banning all social interaction between manager and elderly residents will cause the residents to retreat more and interact less. It is a retrograde step for the retired population!

In which case your wife would probably be better off using that as a basis for discussion with her employer rather than taking the "that's not fair, I want a cheap/free day out with my friends..." line.

WoodruffsDad

SueC wrote: »

In which case your wife would probably be better off using that as a basis for discussion with her employer rather than taking the "that's not fair, I want a cheap/free day out with my friends..." line.

Nonsense.

The day out would be taken as holiday. The trips are NOT subsidised in any way and, when she was allowed to participate, my wife (and I) paid the full economic rate for the trip. The social club arranged everything and the coach company and specific attraction were paid in full and direct. The employer (council) has no part in the payment for outings.

As far as coffee mornings etc. are concerned, everybody pays a small cash sub. each week from which tea, coffee, biscuits etc. are paid for. Again, no cost to the council.

Please do not make us out to be taking a financial advantage. We are not!