shocking treatment of aa staff

Strider590

Company already has more chiefs than Indians and the upper management fat cats get rid of people to save their own jobs...... Nothing new there.

jlrtech

from the forum


When will they stop calling people that take out breakdown cover members,that finished when they all had their £250 many years ago,they are just customers now that the AA can do what they like with,same as any other large company.Lets see how much we can rip our customers off for

password is now 617 for http://www.aapeople.co.uk/forum.html :beer:

jamespir

jlrtech wrote: »

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/latest_news/aa_guilty_of_disability_discri.aspx




AA FOUND GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DIABETIC GMB MEMBER IT TRIED TO "PERFORMANCE MANAGE" OUT OF HIS PATROL JOB

GMB member was not intimidated and his successful claim shows that there is an alternative to being "performance managed" out the door for the 450 AA staff across the country currently facing this prospect

An Employment Tribunal, sitting in Exeter, has found that the AA is guilty of discrimination against a disabled employee Paul Bailey who AA tried to ""performance manage" out of his AA patrol job. The Employment Tribunal unanimously held that Mr. Bailey had been subjected by AA to direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and a failure to make reasonable adjustments because of his disability.

Earlier this month GMB, the union for staff in AA, said that up to 450 AA workers across Britain have been targeted by AA managers with "a take it or leave it" offer of £18,000 to leave their jobs in five days of face being "performance managed" out the door. This is a repeat of what happened in 2006 when over 3,000 were pushed out the door by the private equity owners Permira and CVC. See notes to editors below. GMB believe that the AA is seeking to get rid of around 450 skilled patrol staff and replace some of them with less skilled workers on lower pay and conditions. AA admitted that they plan to performance manage 200 staff out the door.

Paul Bailey, a GMB member, was a top 100 patrol within the AA and started working for the AA in 1998. He was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in June 2009 following which he was advised to take a more measured approach to his work. His performance subsequently dropped, although he remained an average performer within the company.

In the case of Mr. Bailey, in October 2010, the AA sent out a training support patrol with Mr. Bailey for 2 weeks. The Tribunal found that it had never happened before that an employee had been accompanied by a training patrol for a period of 2 weeks and that such accompaniment was generally for 1 day or, if there were concerns about performance, 2 days. The Tribunal held that Mr. Bailey was only being subjected to the assessment because his performance had dropped because of his diabetes. Moreover, the Tribunal held that Mr. Bailey's performance was not so bad as to merit a performance review as his performance was average. Moreover, neither Mr. Bailey nor the training support patrols were told what to expect or what the purpose of the accompaniment was meant to be. Mr. Bailey also received no feedback following the accompaniment. Mr. Bailey found the accompaniment very stressful as he believed the training support patrol was there to increase his speed. He also found it difficult to take rest breaks while the training support patrol was in the cab. Moreover, Mr. Bailey was distressed when his line manager, Jason Morrison, called the training support patrol and spoke with him about Mr. Bailey while Mr. Bailey was present.

Further, in December 2010, Jason Morrison offered Mr. Bailey three months' salary to leave saying that the alternative would be to be placed on an improvement plan, which Mr. Bailey was told he wouldn't pass. When Mr. Bailey refused to leave he was subjected to a technical assessment for poor performers. The forms relating to the technical assessment indicated that a person who did not do well could be dismissed. Mr. Bailey attended the technical assessment and was embarrassed to see that another person being assessed was someone who was at the bottom of his team. Mr. Bailey passed the technical assessment and acknowledged at the Tribunal hearing that his performance had dropped so that he was no longer a top 100 performer but insisted that he was not now a poor performer. Rather, he stated that he was still an average performer with over 1000 employees whose performance was beneath his own.

Mr. Morrison further told Mr. Bailey that there was another patrol with type 1 diabetes and that therefore Mr. Bailey should not have a problem, although Mr. Morrison later admitted that he did not know who the other patrol was.

He also told Mr. Bailey that other patrols were paid the same amount of money for doing twice as much work. Again Mr. Bailey complained that there were hundreds of patrols who were not disabled, who did a lot less work than him but who were not being subjected to similar treatment.

Mr. Morrison also told Mr. Bailey that if he had an accident at work, that Mr. Morrison could be liable for corporate manslaughter and sent to jail.

Paul Grafton GMB Regional Officer who supported the claim on behalf of Mr. Bailey said "The Employment Tribunal unanimously held that Mr. Bailey had been subjected by AA to direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and a failure to make reasonable adjustments because of his disability.

The outcome for Mr. Bailey is clearly a huge step forward to recognizing diabetes within the workplace and forcing employers to act appropriately.

Mr. Bailey refused to bow to the intimidation and turned to his union GMB who supported him when he filed his successful claim. This should show other staff at AA that there is an alternative to being "performance managed" out the door. Up to 450 AA staff across the country are currently facing this prospect.

Sadly the AA continues to use huge financial resources ifrom its private equity owned backers and intimidatory techniques to push staff out the back door with a cheap financial offer because they suffer a disability. AA has pushing people out the door for years and it is happening now at AA with the approval of the in-house staff association"'

Mr. Bailey, following receipt of the judgment, said ' I feel a massive sense of relief as this whole process has had a damaging effect on my health and my life. I always felt confident of a positive result and would like to thank the GMB and their excellent legal team for their unwavering support during a very difficult time."

End

Notes to Editors

Following the private equity takeover of AA GMB members who were sacked AA disabled staff protested throughout 2006 and 2007 to say that AA profits were increased by sackings, prices rises and reduction in service to customers, and that AA had been asset stripped and burdened with debts as follows:-

• In September 2007 the private equity owners took £300 million out of the AA having owned it for less than 3 years. The five top people at owners CVC were paid £50 million each for a year's work. City sources say the amount asset stripped was far higher.

• The AA has been left saddled with debts of £4.8 billion. Debt is £400,000 per employee. Interest on this debt is £30,000 per year per employee, more than double the pay of call centre staff.

• 3,400 of the 10,000 employees were in sacked between 2005/ 2007 and AA patrols were forced to work compulsory overtime.

• GMB was derecognized by AA HR professionals who were key to setting up a staff association that assisted them in the greatest act of corporate bullying ever seen in the UK.

• Disabled and sick staff was targeted for the sack in "one to one" meetings. Each person was given the choice of either accepting £18,000 to leave quietly without complaint or be "performance managed" out the door with nothing. GMB has won employment tribunal cases for unfair dismissals at AA during the restructuring.

• Wages for call centre staff in Newcastle upon Tyne, Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff were cut and staff are subjected to total surveillance.

• Prices for many customers were also raised.

• AA fell from first to third for response times to customers after the takeover by private equity. Night patrols were withdrawn after seventy years.

• In October 2007 it was reported that an AA member stranded in the Yorkshire Dales for 10 hours had to be rescued by his wife travelling from Southampton before the AA could get to him. The AA has written to him to say "It is as a direct result of your experience that we are fully engaged in the process of changing our (award winning) working methods to address our failings."

• In October 2007 GMB wrote to Department of Transport complaining the AA is breaking the law failing to comply with the tachographs and drivers hour's regulations for its VRS recovery vehicles.

:beer:

whats that got to do with the job losses ?

Hintza

This is really boring OP, all you do is regurgitate articles with little or no comment. You are in the business did the AA fire you or are you just going on and on because your wife had to sit at the side of the road for four hours?

If you don't like the way they do business change to another breakdown company.

adamc260

Some unhappy patrol men there

I was with the AA for one year before but never had to call them.

Called the RAC out on a few occasions and to be fair they've been fantastic every time I've called them.

andrew_strong

I have to say to Mr JLR tech this makes me un happy to read.

I think the AA management need to take note and take some learning from this..........

redped

Any particular reason why you revived an old thread, just to praise the OP and bash the AA with your first post? Cynical? Moi?

Knackered

Hilarious stuff. A pity that jlrtech seems to have gone now. I was looking forward to some more out-of-context figures relating to nothing particularly shocking or interesting.

redped

Funnily enough, it looks like jlrtech was last online at 12:22 AM today - maybe setting up another account? Or maybe it's a huge coincidence

motorguy

andrew_strong wrote: »

I have to say to Mr JLR tech this makes me un happy to read.

I think the AA management need to take note and take some learning from this..........

Thanks JLRTech, sorry Andrew...:rotfl: