Problems at work after returning from jury duty

steven2022

JReacher1 said:

Just to sum up the situation. Your friend feels discriminated against because he is being asked to work 9am to 6pm in a shop for one month.  

I honestly think the world is going mad. 

Diamandis said:

Most people would kill to work 9-6. What is his problem with this exactly? 

His problems is that before he went on jury service he had mixture shifts that allowed him to finish by 4ish so he used to spend more time with his kids after work & even pick them up from after school clubs etc…now by putting him on nearly all the closing 6pm shifts he gets less time with kids as they are off to bed by time he gets in from work from a 6pm shift. All he has asked his employer to please divide the shifts a bit more evenly as everyone at his company prefers the early shifts….BUT the manager keeps throwing in his face that you’ve  been on jury service for soo long like it’s some kind of justification for putting him on nearly all the forthcoming 6pm closing shifts. Everyone can have their opinion on this matter, but it sounds like to my friend the management are trying to justify putting him on high majority of closing shifts due to him being called for jury duty which seems a little discriminatory. The managers said they were going to object to the courts for putting my friend on the lengthy trial but they never did for whatever reason.

Longwalker

steven2022 said:

JReacher1 said:

Just to sum up the situation. Your friend feels discriminated against because he is being asked to work 9am to 6pm in a shop for one month.  

I honestly think the world is going mad. 

Diamandis said:

Most people would kill to work 9-6. What is his problem with this exactly? 

His problems is that before he went on jury service he had mixture shifts that allowed him to finish by 4ish so he used to spend more time with his kids after work & even pick them up from after school clubs etc…now by putting him on nearly all the closing 6pm shifts he gets less time with kids as they are off to bed by time he gets in from work from a 6pm shift. All he has asked his employer to please divide the shifts a bit more evenly as everyone at his company prefers the early shifts….BUT the manager keeps throwing in his face that you’ve  been on jury service for soo long like it’s some kind of justification for putting him on nearly all the forthcoming 6pm closing shifts. Everyone can have their opinion on this matter, but it sounds like to my friend the management are trying to justify putting him on high majority of closing shifts due to him being called for jury duty which seems a little discriminatory. The managers said they were going to object to the courts for putting my friend on the lengthy trial but they never did for whatever reason.

So whilst your friend was doing Jury service for 3 months and a bit, the other two managers had to take on his share of 6pm finishes. This is where the bosses are saying, you havent done a 6pm finish in months, we are getting ear ache from those two, , you do the 6pms for 4 weeks - the four weeks he would have had to have done is he had been there the 14 weeks, gives the other two managers a break from them and gets them off our backs!!

If over the course of 52 weeks he can prove he has done more 6pm shifts then anyone else, then I can see how he could feel aggrieved

I cant see any discrimination at all - just the normal swings and roundabouts of giving everyone a fair share of shift times

elsien

If he’s thinking of walking out of a job because of a temporary shift difference of 2 hours, he needs to give himself a good talking to.
Its for a month. 

Sense of proportion needed here. 

Spendless

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

Andy_L said:

Does his contract say anything about the distribution of night vs day shifts?

Unless he can show that the reason he is getting jiffed with the antisocial shifts is because of a protected characteristic (eg race, sex, religion etc) he has no come back under employment law

Hi, no nothing in there contract of distribution of night/days shifts. Just 40 hrs over 5 days.

Why does you friend not feel it's fair that because his collegues have had to pick up all the night shifts for 3 months that he should do them for the first month he is back?

I'm not surprised he feels like an outsider at work if he doesn't see how his collegues probably want a break after being a man down for such a long period and having to pick up all his night shifts in the mean time.

If there are 3 managers and night shifts were shared equally between them then over a 14 week period he would be doing in total just over 1 monts worth... so where exactly is the unfairness?

Hes company don’t have night shifts… just a open shift from 7am-4pm or the close shift of 9am-6pm….my friend did not volunteer for jury service nor did he expect it to be this long….even whilst he was on jury service his colleagues were still more or less dividing the open/close shifts evenly given the circumstances…week after he’s been back he seems to have been put for all the close shifts and when he queried this his managers keeps bringing up that you been off on jury service like it’s a justification to put him on all the lates for a month. Just my opinion but it seems like a bit discrimination just because he had to attend jury service.

So instead of "night shift" in my reply replace it with "late shift".

Spendless said:

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

Andy_L said:

Does his contract say anything about the distribution of night vs day shifts?

Unless he can show that the reason he is getting jiffed with the antisocial shifts is because of a protected characteristic (eg race, sex, religion etc) he has no come back under employment law

Hi, no nothing in there contract of distribution of night/days shifts. Just 40 hrs over 5 days.

Why does you friend not feel it's fair that because his collegues have had to pick up all the night shifts for 3 months that he should do them for the first month he is back?

I'm not surprised he feels like an outsider at work if he doesn't see how his collegues probably want a break after being a man down for such a long period and having to pick up all his night shifts in the mean time.

If there are 3 managers and night shifts were shared equally between them then over a 14 week period he would be doing in total just over 1 monts worth... so where exactly is the unfairness?

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

Andy_L said:

Does his contract say anything about the distribution of night vs day shifts?

Unless he can show that the reason he is getting jiffed with the antisocial shifts is because of a protected characteristic (eg race, sex, religion etc) he has no come back under employment law

Hi, no nothing in there contract of distribution of night/days shifts. Just 40 hrs over 5 days.

Why does you friend not feel it's fair that because his collegues have had to pick up all the night shifts for 3 months that he should do them for the first month he is back?

I'm not surprised he feels like an outsider at work if he doesn't see how his collegues probably want a break after being a man down for such a long period and having to pick up all his night shifts in the mean time.

If there are 3 managers and night shifts were shared equally between them then over a 14 week period he would be doing in total just over 1 monts worth... so where exactly is the unfairness?

Because unless they had the other workers all doing 1 month each of late shift then they have just given that to OP's friend due to being on jury service. It sounds like the lates continued to be shared out, not that each person got 1 month each.

I really don't see the problem here. They have obviously determined that the later shift is the worse of the two and as he was away then they had to do more between them. Now he's back they have decided to have a break from the later shift and he can do all the fair share he "missed" while he was away.

But to me this just sounds like a lot of fuss over nothing as it's only a 2 hour difference in finishing time.

Because NO ONE else has been asked to do a full month of all lates. Not before the friend went on Jury serive, not whilst they were on jury service and not after friend returned with the exception of friend only because they  went on jury service.

Substitute Jury service as the reason for being off  for maternity/paternity leave, recovering after an operation or injuries caused by a road accident or treatment for Cancer and is it still fair that the returning person gets  a shift pattern that no one else has been given just because they were off.

Whether he wishes to do something about it is up to them. 

JReacher1

Spendless said:

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

Andy_L said:

Does his contract say anything about the distribution of night vs day shifts?

Unless he can show that the reason he is getting jiffed with the antisocial shifts is because of a protected characteristic (eg race, sex, religion etc) he has no come back under employment law

Hi, no nothing in there contract of distribution of night/days shifts. Just 40 hrs over 5 days.

Why does you friend not feel it's fair that because his collegues have had to pick up all the night shifts for 3 months that he should do them for the first month he is back?

I'm not surprised he feels like an outsider at work if he doesn't see how his collegues probably want a break after being a man down for such a long period and having to pick up all his night shifts in the mean time.

If there are 3 managers and night shifts were shared equally between them then over a 14 week period he would be doing in total just over 1 monts worth... so where exactly is the unfairness?

Hes company don’t have night shifts… just a open shift from 7am-4pm or the close shift of 9am-6pm….my friend did not volunteer for jury service nor did he expect it to be this long….even whilst he was on jury service his colleagues were still more or less dividing the open/close shifts evenly given the circumstances…week after he’s been back he seems to have been put for all the close shifts and when he queried this his managers keeps bringing up that you been off on jury service like it’s a justification to put him on all the lates for a month. Just my opinion but it seems like a bit discrimination just because he had to attend jury service.

So instead of "night shift" in my reply replace it with "late shift".

Spendless said:

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

Andy_L said:

Does his contract say anything about the distribution of night vs day shifts?

Unless he can show that the reason he is getting jiffed with the antisocial shifts is because of a protected characteristic (eg race, sex, religion etc) he has no come back under employment law

Hi, no nothing in there contract of distribution of night/days shifts. Just 40 hrs over 5 days.

Why does you friend not feel it's fair that because his collegues have had to pick up all the night shifts for 3 months that he should do them for the first month he is back?

I'm not surprised he feels like an outsider at work if he doesn't see how his collegues probably want a break after being a man down for such a long period and having to pick up all his night shifts in the mean time.

If there are 3 managers and night shifts were shared equally between them then over a 14 week period he would be doing in total just over 1 monts worth... so where exactly is the unfairness?

RogerBareford said:

steven2022 said:

Andy_L said:

Does his contract say anything about the distribution of night vs day shifts?

Unless he can show that the reason he is getting jiffed with the antisocial shifts is because of a protected characteristic (eg race, sex, religion etc) he has no come back under employment law

Hi, no nothing in there contract of distribution of night/days shifts. Just 40 hrs over 5 days.

Why does you friend not feel it's fair that because his collegues have had to pick up all the night shifts for 3 months that he should do them for the first month he is back?

I'm not surprised he feels like an outsider at work if he doesn't see how his collegues probably want a break after being a man down for such a long period and having to pick up all his night shifts in the mean time.

If there are 3 managers and night shifts were shared equally between them then over a 14 week period he would be doing in total just over 1 monts worth... so where exactly is the unfairness?

Because unless they had the other workers all doing 1 month each of late shift then they have just given that to OP's friend due to being on jury service. It sounds like the lates continued to be shared out, not that each person got 1 month each.

I really don't see the problem here. They have obviously determined that the later shift is the worse of the two and as he was away then they had to do more between them. Now he's back they have decided to have a break from the later shift and he can do all the fair share he "missed" while he was away.

But to me this just sounds like a lot of fuss over nothing as it's only a 2 hour difference in finishing time.

Because NO ONE else has been asked to do a full month of all lates. Not before the friend went on Jury serive, not whilst they were on jury service and not after friend returned with the exception of friend only because they  went on jury service.

Substitute Jury service as the reason for being off  for maternity/paternity leave, recovering after an operation or injuries caused by a road accident or treatment for Cancer and is it still fair that the returning person gets  a shift pattern that no one else has been given just because they were off.

Whether he wishes to do something about it is up to them. 

Your examples are slightly ridiculous. Being on jury service for 14 weeks is completely different to coming back to work after maternity/paternity or recovering from cancer. 

Being on jury service is not a protected characteristic so the OP’s friend is not being discriminated against. 

diystarter7

What many have forgotten here and are being very harsh to the OP is the fact that he feels hard done for doing what was right, IE Jury service.


I've seen discrimination at work and from what the OP has posted this is what it is.

Why should the OP lose out. Yes, there is no reason the OP should lose out for doing their public duty from which many shy away from. The OP should not be penalised and this is what it is.

I recall returning from 2 weeks holiday and needing time off a few days after that and as I was telling the manager about this she blurted out "you've just returned from your holidays" -  I had to tell her if she would kindly let me finish. It was a combi boiler total breakdown appointment from the makers of the bolier and it was a morning appointment between 8 and 1pm.  As I often started early and finished by 4pm half a day would not make sense so she agreed but there was no need for the crass intervention.


Managers at supermarkets are under stress I've seen them running around like headless chickens and all have their favs, it is what it is.

elsien

diystarter7 said:

What many have forgotten here and are being very harsh to the OP is the fact that he feels hard done for doing what was right, IE Jury service.


I've seen discrimination at work and from what the OP has posted this is what it is.

Why should the OP lose out. Yes, there is no reason the OP should lose out for doing their public duty from which many shy away from. The OP should not be penalised and this is what it is.

I recall returning from 2 weeks holiday and needing time off a few days after that and as I was telling the manager about this she blurted out "you've just returned from your holidays" -  I had to tell her if she would kindly let me finish. It was a combi boiler total breakdown appointment from the makers of the bolier and it was a morning appointment between 8 and 1pm.  As I often started early and finished by 4pm half a day would not make sense so she agreed but there was no need for the crass intervention.


Managers at supermarkets are under stress I've seen them running around like headless chickens and all have their favs, it is what it is.

Your boiler is not your managers problem, and whether you considered her reply crass or not, there was no obligation to give you the extra half day off. 

With regards to the OP, lots of people are flinging the word discrimination around without considering whether what is happening falls within the definition of unlawful discrimination. There’s a difference between unlawful discrimination and people feeling they’re not being treated fairly. In which case I refer to my earlier post. 

Out of interest, does your employment contract reference a duty of care for appointments? I’d be interested to see the wording on that. 

diystarter7

elsien said:

diystarter7 said:

What many have forgotten here and are being very harsh to the OP is the fact that he feels hard done for doing what was right, IE Jury service.


I've seen discrimination at work and from what the OP has posted this is what it is.

Why should the OP lose out. Yes, there is no reason the OP should lose out for doing their public duty from which many shy away from. The OP should not be penalised and this is what it is.

I recall returning from 2 weeks holiday and needing time off a few days after that and as I was telling the manager about this she blurted out "you've just returned from your holidays" -  I had to tell her if she would kindly let me finish. It was a combi boiler total breakdown appointment from the makers of the bolier and it was a morning appointment between 8 and 1pm.  As I often started early and finished by 4pm half a day would not make sense so she agreed but there was no need for the crass intervention.


Managers at supermarkets are under stress I've seen them running around like headless chickens and all have their favs, it is what it is.

Your boiler is not your managers problem,

My organisation has duty of care to accommodate our needs/appointments within reason.
People got time off when their children were unwell as did we and having hot water/heating in the winter
with young children in the home is essential where we lived.

I actually had to have two days off as they needed parts. I had previously consulted HR
who were in agreement that with children in the house if the boiler stops working it is deemed reasonable to have time off as our previous boiler kept on breaking don and I was fed up with the snide comments so we got a new boiler. and that broke as things do at times. and
as long as you have considered alternatives which I/we had it was ok to take time home with 24 hours notice which I was giving more than 24 hours actually

The OP's manager is clearly picking on them for doing their public service. Perhaps the manager can't cope and needs to get another job with less responsibility.

Have a nice day.

elsien

Or perhaps the manager is trying to be fair to the other employees who have similar wishes to the OP’s friend for more family time and who have had to cover the slack in the interim through no fault of their own either. 
Either way it’s not unlawful discrimination.

diystarter7

Perhaps the manager needs to go on training 'how to fairly treat staff that have been away from work through no fault of their own.'

OP, wishing you a positive. outcome.