Employer selecting who they enforce rules on?

B0bbyEwing

First off I should point out, this isn't for me so if you need to know anything specific then I'll need to ask. The person this is for would've asked themselves but their account got shut down without explanation, hence me asking for them.

Briefly, can an employer pick and choose who they enforce rules on? 

Which is what I was asked to quiz you on. I suspect the answer to that is yes, so to take that further, let's assume the employer starts seeing that through & goes down disciplinary procedures and dismissal. Can it be done then?

To put a scenario to it, let's choose lateness. 

So say you have 2 or 3 people. A, B, C. All in the same department, all supposed to start work at 8am.
A generally comes to work in good time but will occasionally punch in at 7:58, 7:59 and by the time they get their stuff ready it may be 8:02, 8:03. Some times they may even punch in at say 7:55, be ready for 7:59-8:00 but be accused of being late.

Clearly the question here is coming from person A.

Person B will punch in at 7:58-8:02 frequently & not be ready until say 8:05.

Person C will frequently not bother turning up until 8:05-8:10.



Back to Person A - they're the one getting confronted aggressively for "being late". B & C are left alone.

So if it got as serious as disciplinaries and dismissal in this example, could A do anything about it in terms of unfair dismissal or is it a case of employer can allow whoever they want to break the rules and come down on whoever they want, even if they're actually not breaking the rules (in the case of being ready for 8:00)?

74jax

Why would A care what B and C got up to or had agreed? 

A needs to take care of themselves and work with the policies and procedures and leave B, C and everyone through to Z out of it. If disciplined they fight their corner with the policies, not with what others do. 

comeandgo

A needs to be on time, if that’s what his contract says.  He would have no idea of the contract between B and C and the employer.

DE_612183

A could of course if sacked go to an industrial tribunal and ask B and C to appear as witnesses to the employers unfair behaviour - but I think that is unlikely to happen.

A should speak to their union rep asap - let's call them Q.

eamon

I would think that what OP is describing is common in many workplaces. It goes under many guises starting with blatant favouritism through to cronyism & nepotism. I think that in my 35 years of work I have seen all the bad traits in the UK workplace. Workplace social scientists would have a field day (or nervous breakdown) if allowed to do a long term study.

TBagpuss

In practical terms, yes , they probably can. As above, A doesn't necessarily have all the relevant information, it could be that B or C have slightly different terms of employ,ent, they may have come to an agreement with the employer or it could be an accommodation for a disability .

It's also possibe that it is part of a wider issue (although the employer should be communicating more clearly if that's the case) - for instnace, if B & C are generally more productive / efficient, if they mke up the time if they are late or are more willing to do  bit extra when needed, or there are any other concerns or issues with A's performance or behaviour then they may find that they are under more scrutiny and given less leeway.

Treating people different *could* be a basis for arguing thast the process used in a disciplinary was not fair / reasonable, if it got to that point, but it would, I think, be unlikelyto make any difference in isolation, although it might be relevant if A were claiming dsicrimination or unfiar treatment on a wider basis.

I think A's best bet is to make sure that they are on time, and also consider whether there are other things that they might need to improve on - sometimes getting picky about things like timekeeping can be that there are issues with a persona's over all performance or attitude but the other things are harder to explicitly describe. Obviouslt a good manager will make the effort to discuss any concerns but A can consider for themselves whether that migght be part of what's happeneing, and act accordingly. 

B0bbyEwing

74jax said:

Why would A care what B and C got up to or had agreed? 

A needs to take care of themselves and work with the policies and procedures and leave B, C and everyone through to Z out of it. If disciplined they fight their corner with the policies, not with what others do. 

comeandgo said:

A needs to be on time, if that’s what his contract says.  He would have no idea of the contract between B and C and the employer.

To try and clear some of this up.

Why does A care? 
We can throw phrases around all day long. I'll say because it's not fair, someone else will say life isn't fair and be that as it may, it's just not right to come down on one for one thing but not others when they're technically worse.

As for the contract, there is no agreement that B & C can be late. Everyone is to be on time. There's no exceptions. The contract is very general. 

Funnily, the same person giving A the telling has also told A in a bit of an "I despair" style rant that they're frustrated with C coming in so frequently late but the boss has said to not see the disciplinary procedure through because when C eventually turns up, they work well enough & it's hard to get decent workers. 
A also works well enough before that one is put out there. They've been told as such before.

Hopefully that clears any mystery agreements up.

"A needs to be on time"

Forget for a second the example I gave where they are not - because that is fair enough. I agree with you.

What of the time when they ARE on time? Yet are accused of not being. 

Sure, they could get to work for 5am and sit there for 3 hours but it's avoiding the point.

DE_612183 said:

A could of course if sacked go to an industrial tribunal and ask B and C to appear as witnesses to the employers unfair behaviour - but I think that is unlikely to happen.

A should speak to their union rep asap - let's call them Q.

Thanks. I'll let them know. Not sure if they're in a union tbh. I think so.

Isn't Q taken by some secret service worker?

eamon said:

I would think that what OP is describing is common in many workplaces. It goes under many guises starting with blatant favouritism through to cronyism & nepotism. I think that in my 35 years of work I have seen all the bad traits in the UK workplace. Workplace social scientists would have a field day (or nervous breakdown) if allowed to do a long term study.

From the sounds of it to me it certainly seems that way.

A - you've annoyed us this week so you're going to get both barrels. 

Next week D makes an appearance and forgets to put deodorant on so A is let off the hook & now D is getting it.

But E can get away with murder because his face fits regardless of absolutely anything.

DE_612183

B0bbyEwing said:

74jax said:

Why would A care what B and C got up to or had agreed? 

A needs to take care of themselves and work with the policies and procedures and leave B, C and everyone through to Z out of it. If disciplined they fight their corner with the policies, not with what others do. 

comeandgo said:

A needs to be on time, if that’s what his contract says.  He would have no idea of the contract between B and C and the employer.

To try and clear some of this up.

Why does A care? 
We can throw phrases around all day long. I'll say because it's not fair, someone else will say life isn't fair and be that as it may, it's just not right to come down on one for one thing but not others when they're technically worse.

As for the contract, there is no agreement that B & C can be late. Everyone is to be on time. There's no exceptions. The contract is very general. 

Funnily, the same person giving A the telling has also told A in a bit of an "I despair" style rant that they're frustrated with C coming in so frequently late but the boss has said to not see the disciplinary procedure through because when C eventually turns up, they work well enough & it's hard to get decent workers. 
A also works well enough before that one is put out there. They've been told as such before.

Hopefully that clears any mystery agreements up.

"A needs to be on time"

Forget for a second the example I gave where they are not - because that is fair enough. I agree with you.

What of the time when they ARE on time? Yet are accused of not being. 

Sure, they could get to work for 5am and sit there for 3 hours but it's avoiding the point.

DE_612183 said:

A could of course if sacked go to an industrial tribunal and ask B and C to appear as witnesses to the employers unfair behaviour - but I think that is unlikely to happen.

A should speak to their union rep asap - let's call them Q.

Thanks. I'll let them know. Not sure if they're in a union tbh. I think so.

Isn't Q taken by some secret service worker?

eamon said:

I would think that what OP is describing is common in many workplaces. It goes under many guises starting with blatant favouritism through to cronyism & nepotism. I think that in my 35 years of work I have seen all the bad traits in the UK workplace. Workplace social scientists would have a field day (or nervous breakdown) if allowed to do a long term study.

From the sounds of it to me it certainly seems that way.

A - you've annoyed us this week so you're going to get both barrels. 

Next week D makes an appearance and forgets to put deodorant on so A is let off the hook & now D is getting it.

But E can get away with murder because his face fits regardless of absolutely anything.

Yes the quote about Q was a reference to 007 - have you or A heard a song called ABCDEFU ? May be apt!

Undervalued

B0bbyEwing said:

First off I should point out, this isn't for me so if you need to know anything specific then I'll need to ask. The person this is for would've asked themselves but their account got shut down without explanation, hence me asking for them.

Briefly, can an employer pick and choose who they enforce rules on? 

Which is what I was asked to quiz you on. I suspect the answer to that is yes, so to take that further, let's assume the employer starts seeing that through & goes down disciplinary procedures and dismissal. Can it be done then?

To put a scenario to it, let's choose lateness. 

So say you have 2 or 3 people. A, B, C. All in the same department, all supposed to start work at 8am.
A generally comes to work in good time but will occasionally punch in at 7:58, 7:59 and by the time they get their stuff ready it may be 8:02, 8:03. Some times they may even punch in at say 7:55, be ready for 7:59-8:00 but be accused of being late.

Clearly the question here is coming from person A.

Person B will punch in at 7:58-8:02 frequently & not be ready until say 8:05.

Person C will frequently not bother turning up until 8:05-8:10.



Back to Person A - they're the one getting confronted aggressively for "being late". B & C are left alone.

So if it got as serious as disciplinaries and dismissal in this example, could A do anything about it in terms of unfair dismissal or is it a case of employer can allow whoever they want to break the rules and come down on whoever they want, even if they're actually not breaking the rules (in the case of being ready for 8:00)?

Briefly, yes they can.

There are certain legally protected charchatistics on which they cannot lawfully discriminate (e.g race, religion, gender etc) but outside of these there is no particular obligation to treat all staff equally.

Not that they have to have a reason, there may be other factors you are not aware of and you would generally have no right to that information. Person C might be much better at their job than the other two so the employer may be cutting them some slack in other areas.

Equally person C might have some (non visible) disability and the employer is making "reasonable adjustments". Again, persons A and B have no right to that information.

Maybe person C's wife babysits the boss's children, so the boss doesn't want to upset him. No law against that either.

TELLIT01

The reason for accepting B & C clocking on a couple of minutes late could be down to something as simple as their bus timetable and earlier bus getting them there at stupid o'clock.  Management recognise the problem and take the pragmatic approach of slightly late arrival at, and departure from, work.

A might be getting the disciplinary route because management think A is taking the wotsit and deliberately pushing the system to the limit.

B0bbyEwing

DE_612183 said:

Yes the quote about Q was a reference to 007 -

I gathered

DE_612183 said:
have you or A heard a song called ABCDEFU ? May be apt!

If you're talking about that song which featured on way too many TikTok videos then unfortunately yes. Very annoying song.

Undervalued said:

Equally person C might have some (non visible) disability and the employer is making "reasonable adjustments". Again, persons A and B have no right to that information.

While they have no right, as I said, the person dishing out the tellings has disclosed that the company aren't really happy with the time keeping (& have actually issued a letter of concern to person C) but they're not going to pursue it all the way through the disciplinary procedure.

BUT

with that said, I get your point - the company can do whatever they want providing they don't say to person A we're paying you special attention because you're white/black/asian/male/female etc.

TELLIT01 said:

The reason for accepting B & C clocking on a couple of minutes late could be down to something as simple as their bus timetable and earlier bus getting them there at stupid o'clock.  Management recognise the problem and take the pragmatic approach of slightly late arrival at, and departure from, work.

A might be getting the disciplinary route because management think A is taking the wotsit and deliberately pushing the system to the limit.

I think this is way off.

All 3 drive to work and A is the most consistently on time. They will be 'close' say one or two times a month. B will be 3-4 days out of 5 in a week and C will be every single day.

BUT, I get your point - there may be a reason that the company accept for 2 of them.


My personal opinion - I think the company either want A to leave or they just want to make an example of A. They can't be bothered to deal with B & C. Their faces fit better. 

And by the sounds of it, there's nothing anyone can do about that.