Problems at work after returning from jury duty

diystarter7

JCS1 said:

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?  

ACAS job is to mediate, help, easy the process and it is their bread and butter helping/guiding people through stuff like this.

At times one's manager may not be up to the task and or rude/bully to cover their incompetence. What this manager is saying or trying to do may be the best way forward but they lack the capacity to deliver ina decisive and constructive manner that is not seen as bullying/condescending etc.  ACAS will guide both sides and at times it's easier to take notice of a third party.

ACAS is the way forward.

Spendless

JReacher1 said:

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. 

At no point have I said it's against the law. I've told OP to tell friend to look into the company policy and what it says about there about  equality in the workplace.

If it caused so much issue to the workmates, why weren't any of them asked to do a full month of lates whilst friend was serving as a Juror? The only reason friend has been told he has to do it is because he was serving on a jury. He is being asked to do something that no others have purely down to being a juror.  

JCS1

diystarter7 said:

JCS1 said:

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?  

ACAS job is to mediate, help, easy the process and it is their bread and butter helping/guiding people through stuff like this.

At times one's manager may not be up to the task and or rude/bully to cover their incompetence. What this manager is saying or trying to do may be the best way forward but they lack the capacity to deliver ina decisive and constructive manner that is not seen as bullying/condescending etc.  ACAS will guide both sides and at times it's easier to take notice of a third party.

ACAS is the way forward.

But what the company has done is not illegal in law, so again, what can ACAS do?

JReacher1

Spendless said:

JReacher1 said:

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. 

At no point have I said it's against the law. I've told OP to tell friend to look into the company policy and what it says about there about  equality in the workplace.

If it caused so much issue to the workmates, why weren't any of them asked to do a full month of lates whilst friend was serving as a Juror? The only reason friend has been told he has to do it is because he was serving on a jury. He is being asked to do something that no others have purely down to being a juror.  

I don't think it has been confirmed that the other workmates didn't do more late shifts has it?  I believe the OP said they had some casual help from another store but that didn't sound a formal arrangement.  I would speculate that the two colleagues have done significantly more late shifts over the last 14 weeks than they would have done if the OP was working.  

Even if it was a matter of equality in the workplace (which is clearly isn't) then that wouldn't be applicable for a one month rota of shifts.  It would have to be something over a significant period of time to really justify any complaint

JReacher1

diystarter7 said:

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.

I know you're not great on detail but its clearly not the OP.  Its his friend :-)

warby68

If the friend feels out on a limb now, if he follows all this stuff about incompetent management, ACAS, victimisation etc etc for a rota which is probably entirely at the manager's discretion and nowhere near as big an issue as some are making out (these are only expressed preferences for shifts not some kind of right in tablets of stone) then he'll be out on some flipping tree trunk of a branch soon.

There is some borderline toxic advice being given here.

Common sense advice - suck it up for a month and do it with a good grace, express some appreciation for the cover while you were away and see what next month's rota is like. Obviously if it continues to be uneven then a pattern will have built which looks more like something to complain about.

MalMonroe

steven2022 said:

Hi, A friend of mine has recently came back from jury service (14 week trial) and he feels the managers are treating him less favourably by putting him on all the late shifts for a month! When he’s asked the manager to divide the shift patterns more fairly amongst a team of 3 the managers says “you’ve got to remember you’ve been on jury service” my friend said it’s not his fault that he was summoned to attend jury service and by declining it could be seen as a criminal offence or fine. Another senior manager also told my friend you “you could have told the court you wanted to be put on a 2 week trial instead of a 14 week” this was my friend first ever jury duty and he didn’t know if he can choose to be put on a shorter trial or not…he was shocked himself to hear on his induction he has been put in for a 14 week trial. He informed his employer immediately about this and they said they were going to get HR object to it but they never did in the end. My friend feels like an outsider at work and is on the verge of leaving due management keep throwing the “jury card” at him. Could anyone advise if there any steps he can take to legally fight back?

thanks

This really is ridiculous. Your friend shouldn't have to sort out things like this, unless he's one of the managers. As soon as he said he was having to do jury service, the employer should have arranged for cover, not tried to make the other remaining members of staff cover for his absence. I mean that way, it could end up proving that they can manage just fine and he's not really needed, for one thing. 

Making your friend responsible for his own absence and colleagues treating him unfavourably is just not on. 

I agree with those who advise consulting acas because acas isn't just for sorting out discrimination, it's supposed to help with all kinds of employment problems for both employers and employees.

I don't suppose your friend's in a union of any kind? If he were he could go to them and ask for support in requesting the employer to put a stop to all the silliness.

There's information in this link - https://www.gov.uk/jury-service - which your friend could have read prior to going on jury service. It isn't compulsory and you can ask to be excused.

Given that he did go on jury service well, I think you could call that 'serving your country'. But he shouldn't be victimised by people at work for doing it. 

The silly people acting as management where he works need to be approached and asked to tone it down. They shouldn't be acting that way anyway. It's puerile and serves no purpose.

If I were your friend I'd be looking round for a decent job.

Savvy_Sue

MalMonroe said:

There's information in this link - https://www.gov.uk/jury-service - which your friend could have read prior to going on jury service. It isn't compulsory and you can ask to be excused.

You say it's not compulsory, but it's hardly optional: you can ask to defer, but you have a good reason, and you have to have an even better reason to be excused altogether.

alidai

diystarter7 said:

JCS1 said:

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?  

ACAS job is to mediate, help, easy the process and it is their bread and butter helping/guiding people through stuff like this.

At times one's manager may not be up to the task and or rude/bully to cover their incompetence. What this manager is saying or trying to do may be the best way forward but they lack the capacity to deliver ina decisive and constructive manner that is not seen as bullying/condescending etc.  ACAS will guide both sides and at times it's easier to take notice of a third party.

ACAS is the way forward.

Jesus, I’m very glad you are not in my workplace.  It does not surprise me one bit that you have used ACAS a lot, as it sounds like you are the type to raise hell when a very minor “issue” occurs.

And yes, this is a minor issue, not one for ACAS, just something that is evening out all of the “late” shifts that the other employees have had to do for the last 3 months.  How anyone can see this as discrimination is quite frankly astounding

Undervalued

MalMonroe said:

steven2022 said:

Hi, A friend of mine has recently came back from jury service (14 week trial) and he feels the managers are treating him less favourably by putting him on all the late shifts for a month! When he’s asked the manager to divide the shift patterns more fairly amongst a team of 3 the managers says “you’ve got to remember you’ve been on jury service” my friend said it’s not his fault that he was summoned to attend jury service and by declining it could be seen as a criminal offence or fine. Another senior manager also told my friend you “you could have told the court you wanted to be put on a 2 week trial instead of a 14 week” this was my friend first ever jury duty and he didn’t know if he can choose to be put on a shorter trial or not…he was shocked himself to hear on his induction he has been put in for a 14 week trial. He informed his employer immediately about this and they said they were going to get HR object to it but they never did in the end. My friend feels like an outsider at work and is on the verge of leaving due management keep throwing the “jury card” at him. Could anyone advise if there any steps he can take to legally fight back?

thanks

This really is ridiculous. Your friend shouldn't have to sort out things like this, unless he's one of the managers. As soon as he said he was having to do jury service, the employer should have arranged for cover, not tried to make the other remaining members of staff cover for his absence. I mean that way, it could end up proving that they can manage just fine and he's not really needed, for one thing. 

Making your friend responsible for his own absence and colleagues treating him unfavourably is just not on. 

I agree with those who advise consulting acas because acas isn't just for sorting out discrimination, it's supposed to help with all kinds of employment problems for both employers and employees.

I don't suppose your friend's in a union of any kind? If he were he could go to them and ask for support in requesting the employer to put a stop to all the silliness.

There's information in this link - https://www.gov.uk/jury-service - which your friend could have read prior to going on jury service. It isn't compulsory and you can ask to be excused.

Given that he did go on jury service well, I think you could call that 'serving your country'. But he shouldn't be victimised by people at work for doing it. 

The silly people acting as management where he works need to be approached and asked to tone it down. They shouldn't be acting that way anyway. It's puerile and serves no purpose.

If I were your friend I'd be looking round for a decent job.

This is wrong!

It is compulsory unless you are excused on one of a fairly short list of allowable grounds. In many cases you can ask to defer your jury service for up to 12 months. Whilst that is generally allowed there is no actual legal right to a deferment so it can (and sometimes is) refused. In fact a jury bailiff can approach somebody on the street and require them to serve immediately unless they qualify for one of the limited reasons to be excused!