Problems at work after returning from jury duty

warby68

He's in a team. The rest of the team may well be mightily hacked off by now. To rebalance things he gets a month of mainly unpopular late shifts. Can he not have a bit longer with children in the morning? I was expecting to see some sort of horrible shift that eats into all parts of a day or something not a variance of 2 hours.

Can he and others really not see that fairness applies to all members of a team not each one in isolation. 

Its a really difficult issue to manage as everyone has different views on what's fair and I agree that unfair is a long way from discrimination. This is the real world, sometimes it is a bit unfair.

No wonder the friend is feeling like an outsider. He is whining when noone else thinks he should be and clearly cares little for his colleagues.

RogerBareford

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 now he gets to see them before school instead...

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. 

That's because he's been away for three months so they had to pick up all the lates that he would have done. This hasn't happened before because no one else has been away from work for three months.

This is all about being a team player. At work there are three people who have to share the late and early shifts between them. If he was a team player then he would be happy to give them a break from lates that they have had to do extra from because of his absense.

Undervalued

diystarter7 said:

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.

No it doesn't. It has a obligation to comply with the law. Anything above or beyond that is, at best, a contractual right or otherwise a gesture of goodwill.

Your HR may have deemed that reasonable, that is up to them, but there is no legal right to time off to deal with tradesmen at home.

Unless your contract says otherwise, any holiday is taken when the employer chooses to allow it and the only legal right to unpaid leave if for "short" periods in "emergency" situations involving your dependents.

diystarter7

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

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.

Your HR may have deemed that reasonable, that is up to them, but there is no legal right to time off to deal with tradesmen at home.

Unless your contract says otherwise, any holiday is taken when the employer chooses to allow it and the only legal right to unpaid leave if for "short" periods in "emergency" situations involving your dependents.

Exactly that and as I clearly stated, it was a reasonable request and they had a duty of care as explained in my earlier post so thanks for that, appreciated it.

Legal or not, it is what it is and I'd be staggered if a large co did not allow leave/time off as per my post. I've said enough on this so you can have the last work

Back to the OP, they are clearly being victimised, no ifs, no buts. It happens, accept it.  A good, decent, fair manager that was asertive and not a bully would have addressed the OP's concerns one way or another to mutual satisfaction.


I've already urged the OP to seek help from ACAS. I've used ACAS several times over the years for myself and my family. Always excellent results.

Please do not forget it is not the OP's fault for being summoned to Jury service. They should not be penalised, the manager has to make other arrangements and not pick on the OP

Undervalued

diystarter7 said:

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

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.

Your HR may have deemed that reasonable, that is up to them, but there is no legal right to time off to deal with tradesmen at home.

Unless your contract says otherwise, any holiday is taken when the employer chooses to allow it and the only legal right to unpaid leave if for "short" periods in "emergency" situations involving your dependents.

Exactly that and as I clearly stated, it was a reasonable request and they had a duty of care as explained in my earlier post so thanks for that, appreciated it.

Legal or not, it is what it is and I'd be staggered if a large co did not allow leave/time off as per my post. I've said enough on this so you can have the last work

Back to the OP, they are clearly being victimised, no ifs, no buts. It happens, accept it.  A good, decent, fair manager that was asertive and not a bully would have addressed the OP's concerns one way or another to mutual satisfaction.


I've already urged the OP to seek help from ACAS. I've used ACAS several times over the years for myself and my family. Always excellent results.

Please do not forget it is not the OP's fault for being summoned to Jury service. They should not be penalised, the manager has to make other arrangements and not pick on the OP

You seem to love trotting out this largely meaningless phrase.

Your employer must comply firstly with the law of the land and secondly with contractual obligations agreed with staff. That is all.

Many "good" employers do far more than that but that doesn't mean other "less good" employers are obliged to.

steven2022

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, 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. 

Hi, nothing in his contract regarding duty of care.

TBagpuss

OK, I know you said that there was some cover from other stored, but in the 14 weeks he ws off, did the other people in his team do more closing shifts than they would normallydo? i.e. did they cover any of the shofts he would have done had he been there? 

Courts sit from 10-4, normally, and while they may ocassinally sit later it is not the norm and would be less likely where there is a jury to  be considered. So while he was on jury duty he wasn't doing such late hours.

I get that he didn't chose to be on a jury and didn't know how long it would be, but it looks as though the manager is trying to be fair to all of the team, I think if he makes a big issue of it he is likely to end up alienating his team mates.

I am not sure that the issue of whether it would be considered unlawful  discrimination or not is helpful - it is unlawful to discriminate against a staff member fordoing jury duty but I am not sure that temporarily  having a slightly different number of closing shofts would be seen as amounting to dsicrimination, particualry if the shift arrangments are desined to ensure that eveyone is trated fairly and equally over all. 

I'd suggest that he thnks about whther this is really the hill he wants to die on. 

ReadingTim

It wasn't his fault he had to do 14 weeks jury service.  It also wasn't his colleagues' fault they had to cover him being off for that time, including doing more late shifts than they were supposed to.  

His absence inconvenienced all them for 14 weeks, and in return, he's being inconvenienced for 4 - in the grand scheme of things, i.e. over all the workers over all of the year, this probably evens itself out.  

Suggest he has a think about how happy he'd be if someone else was off for 3+ months and he had to pick up the slack with no sort of 'time off in lieu' when they got back, and suck it up for the next month.  Furthermore, whilst I don't know how harrowing the case was, I can say from personal experience of jury service, the hours aren't particularly onerous, so I should imagine he's fairly well rested and had the opportunity to see quite a lot of his kids during that time too.  

If the shift patterns haven't reverted to normal in a month then he might have more cause for complaint, but at present he's not going to be doing himself any favours with both his colleagues or his managers carrying on like this.  His call, but I'm not sure I'd be too keen on jobseeking in the current economic climate....

JCS1

The person may think it is unfair, but it is not discrimination in law as it does not relate to one of the protected characteristics.

Therefore fail to see what ACAS could do?  

diystarter7

TBagpuss said:

I get that he didn't chose to be on a jury and didn't know how long it would be, but it looks as though the manager is trying to be fair to all of the team, I think if he makes a big issue of it he is likely to end up alienating his team mates.

I am not sure that the issue of whether it would be considered unlawful  discrimination or not is helpful - it is unlawful to discriminate against a staff member fordoing jury duty but I am not sure that temporarily  having a slightly different number of closing shofts would be seen as amounting to dsicrimination, particualry if the shift arrangments are desined to ensure that eveyone is trated fairly and equally over all. 

I'd suggest that he thnks about whther this is really the hill he wants to die on. 

Fair post and let's say I accept what you said re 'discrimination' - so how about victimisation?

The poor OP did what many lie to get out of. The OP did his public duty and ensured he was part of the process to find a person/s guilty or not guilty for which I thank the OP.

The OP then returns to work and notes the incompetent manager is making him suffer by messing up his shift pattern.

If I worked at that place I'd send the manager on trainng re time management and equality and fairness.

I'm more than certain that the OP would step up as others did when someone else is on Jury Service.

Btw, I've just remembered something that is slightly different but rings true about being victimised. I was off sick for a few days and during one of those days we had the rubbish team meeting that I was supposed to minute. TBH I hated it as many ranted and it got confusing. However, when I returned and on the day of the next meeting I was advised with a smirk by a manager I was minuting and the other seniors knew about this I could just tell. I was having none of it as we had a rota and the person on the minuting duty was present who was also a sycophant.  I put my foot down, it was tense, it was hard, I wanted to get up and leave but I got my way. However, the b's tried to make my life hard but thankfully the manager left and I had a few good co-workers in my little clique that praised me for making a stand. I left that employment when I was ready to do so.

OP, you need to stand up for yourself and I'm sure you are aware that some managers may then put in bad words for you to their cronies but you are the bigger man. Good luck.