Bullying from Boss - Untrue Allegations Made Against Me

NeedSomHelp

I have never previously been involved in any HR disciplinary with my boss.

I admit to using other websites and admit communication has been difficult with my boss (because of his attitude and bullying) but I don't admit to the swearing which I did not do.

I told HR I was going to log a grievance before I even got the notification today, since I inquired what the process was, I only heard back about that yesterday and they want me to outline everything in the document which takes some time to collate.

sangie595

NeedSomHelp wrote: »

I have never previously been involved in any HR disciplinary with my boss. But you have already had some form of compliant against him for bullying because you talked about it earlier on. And the outcome was that they did nothing about it. They refused mediation. They refused redeployment. That is a big indicator that they didn't believe you then. What do you think will have changed?

I admit to using other websites and admit communication has been difficult with my boss (because of his attitude and bullying) but I don't admit to the swearing which I did not do. You have been browsing during working hours and you admit it (and if you haven't admitted it, now is not the time to do so). Your communication has been bad because of the ALLEGED bullying - which they have already once decided was not an issue. So why should they not believe the swearing? They only need reasonable belief.And you appear to already be out on two counts...

I told HR I was going to log a grievance before I even got the notification today, since I inquired what the process was, I only heard back about that yesterday and they want me to outline everything in the document which takes some time to collateOf course they asked you to do that. They are going to show that they scrupulously advised you fairly. HR work for the employer. They will make sure all bases are covered. And that includes making sure you have the opportunity to submit a grievance. But it is still coming in after the formal investigation - nothing now changes that. And there is still no reason why they should hear it before the disciplinary, assuming there is one (which I am assuming). .

I don't think you are really understanding this. I told you before. What anyone else does is none of your business. So what is going on here is that the manager has evidence of YOUR mistakes, which constitute performance failure. Instead of addressing these things, you have gone off and started checking other peoples work (during working hours, when you should have been busy working and making no mistakes?). What you allege is bullying, he is going to say is performance management. Now he also has evidence that you use your mobile for personal reasons during working time (and what was that things about using other websites, because that is sounding like it was more than a one-off). He called you on all these things because it is his job to do so, and you swore at him. Who do you think they will believe?

Malthusian

There seem to be two possible scenarios:

1) The OP is a good worker who has had the misfortune to be employed by a bad employer. If he uses social media at work it's only because he is efficient and completes his required work in under the time he's required to be in the office. He is being unfairly victimised by his boss, who is abusing the error-checking process (only counting work items with errors and ignoring correct ones) and his boss' superiors don't want to know. In which case he should be looking for a better job anyway and something like this was going to happen sooner or later. I gathered from the OP that he's a translator and my understanding is that they're always in demand.

2) The OP isn't being unfairly victimised and the boss isn't abusing the error-checking process. (The thing about translation is that if there are errors in your understanding of grammar, vocabulary or spelling, even if you triple-check something you will still get it wrong. You may even make it worse. It's not like checking your maths with a calculator. So a poor translator may feel he is being victimised when in fact the guy doing the checking is correct.) In which case he should still be looking for another job.

As we have only one side of the story we can't be sure which. But either way my advice to the OP would be the same: be calm, tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the investigation and look for another job.

sangie595

Malthusian wrote: »

There seem to be two possible scenarios:

1) The OP is a good worker who has had the misfortune to be employed by a bad employer. If he uses social media at work it's only because he is efficient and completes his required work in under the time he's required to be in the office. He is being unfairly victimised by his boss, who is abusing the error-checking process (only counting work items with errors and ignoring correct ones) and his boss' superiors don't want to know. In which case he should be looking for a better job anyway and something like this was going to happen sooner or later. I gathered from the OP that he's a translator and my understanding is that they're always in demand.

2) The OP isn't being unfairly victimised and the boss isn't abusing the error-checking process. (The thing about translation is that if there are errors in your understanding of grammar, vocabulary or spelling, even if you triple-check something you will still get it wrong. You may even make it worse. It's not like checking your maths with a calculator. So a poor translator may feel he is being victimised when in fact the guy doing the checking is correct.) In which case he should still be looking for another job.

As we have only one side of the story we can't be sure which. But either way my advice to the OP would be the same: be calm, tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the investigation and look for another job.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, as we all know very well, if someone is bullied or victimised, employers often do nothing about it, or blame the victim. So it all ends in the same place, as you rightly put it - get another job. Once mediation or redeployment have been refused, you will never win - those are the only real options in 99% of cases, and if the employer won't consider them, it is fairly clear where the employers sympathies lie.

NeedSomHelp

Latest update.

They have stated that they will not hear grievance before or during disciplinary despite the fact the policy states they can suspend any disciplinary action whilst it is investigated when it relates to allegations.

They stated I may submit it but they would not delay the meeting which will take place on Friday and allocated me one and a half work hours to prepare my response.

I said I needed more time and since I work late Thursday and start early Friday I had no chance to both finish grievance and collate paperwork in relation to all examples of communication with my boss.

They stated that because of this they would put the meeting back five hours to Friday afternoon to allow me have more time. However my boss has told me for those five hours I am not permitted to prepare materials for meeting.

So essentially I have been given extra time to prepare by hr but my boss won't allow me time off my core duties to use it.. Essentially I am being told I am given more time for a reason then told I cannot use it for that reason. Which seems unfair.

sangie595

Have you asked HR about this? Because your boss is technically correct - he determines what you can do in working time, not HR. So if there is a disagreement over this, then HR and your boss need to resolve it.

Leave the grievance and concentrate on your defence. The two overlap anyway, but they have told you that the grievance will not be heard until after the disciplinary anyway, so you have a weekend to deal with that. It's only been raised after the event anyway, so like I told you, it will carry less weight. So what you need to focus on is the disciplinary.

sangie595

PS - can you please clarify - is this a disciplinary or an investigation meeting? Because previously you said an investigation meeting. And you seem to be using the two terms interchangeably, although they are very different things.

NeedSomHelp

Pre disciplinary essentially a investigation.

I was denied representation on basis it can only be a colleague.

sangie595

NeedSomHelp wrote: »

Pre disciplinary essentially a investigation.

I was denied representation on basis it can only be a colleague.

You have no right to representation at all in an investigation meeting. In a disciplinary you have the right to a colleague or an accredited union representative - but you are not in a union, are you? So it would have to be a colleague.

NeedSomHelp

Company policy states both have right to colleague only