No idea what to do...

Blushing_Money_Spender · 15 August 2019 at 9:52PM

I was placed on Investigatory Suspension 4 months ago following an allegation from my line Manager who had been with the business for just over a year. I subsequently raised a grievance due to a number of changes to my job role he had made over the year he had been with the business which I didn't necessarily agree with but being my Manager I accepted them. The investigation was thrown out recently due 5o no evidence supporting this. However, the grievance that I raised towards my line manager came back and what had happened was myself and my line manager had the same job role. However, he approached HR for my job description and they provided him with a job description that they believed I was successful with rather than my actual job description.
In my resolution letter (for the grievance) recently received it was deemed that there had been a failure of process within HR and that my line manager had failed to document relevant 1-2-1s and my annual performance review which is associated with an Annual bonus however, I was equally to blame as I should have communicated with my line manager about the changes he was making. I did actually communicate these but he didn't listen and he did not document our conversations. I have been informed that the next step will be to have a mediation meeting involving my manager, myself and another to discuss what my job description should actually be. How can this be fair? Would this be deemed constructive dismissal? What if I'm not happy with what they put forward, surely if I'm not happy I'm essentially going to be unemployed? I'm so confused and worn out over this whole situation I just don't know what is right and wrong now. Can anyone please help?

shortcrust · 15 August 2019 at 10:10PM

Blushing_Money_Spender wrote: »

I was placed on Investigatory Suspension 4 months ago following an allegation from my line Manager who had been with the business for just over a year. I subsequently raised a grievance due to a number of changes to my job role he had made over the year he had been with the business which I didn't necessarily agree with but being my Manager I accepted them. The investigation was thrown out recently due 5o no evidence supporting this. However, the grievance that I raised towards my line manager came back and what had happened was myself and my line manager had the same job role. However, he approached HR for my job description and they provided him with a job description that they believed I was successful with rather than my actual job description.
In my resolution letter (for the grievance) recently received it was deemed that there had been a failure of process within HR and that my line manager had failed to document relevant 1-2-1s and my annual performance review which is associated with an Annual bonus however, I was equally to blame as I should have communicated with my line manager about the changes he was making. I did actually communicate these but he didn't listen and he did not document our conversations. I have been informed that the next step will be to have a mediation meeting involving my manager, myself and another to discuss what my job description should actually be. How can this be fair? Would this be deemed constructive dismissal? What if I'm not happy with what they put forward, surely if I'm not happy I'm essentially going to be unemployed? I'm so confused and worn out over this whole situation I just don't know what is right and wrong now. Can anyone please help?

I can't see the problem with this. It seems like a constructive approach. At the risk of stating the obvious, your employer and manager need to have a pretty big say in what is and isn't in your job description. You don't get a veto.

Dox · 15 August 2019 at 10:43PM

Blushing_Money_Spender wrote: »

I have been informed that the next step will be to have a mediation meeting involving my manager, myself and another to discuss what my job description should actually be. How can this be fair? Would this be deemed constructive dismissal? What if I'm not happy with what they put forward, surely if I'm not happy I'm essentially going to be unemployed?

Why do you think it is unfair? You are pre-judging what is going to happen. Ultimately if you don't like the new JD, your remedy is to quit - but that's not constructive dismissal by a long chalk. Employers can change roles to meet business needs. You are at least being given a chance to have a say in the process, but because you're feeling frazzled by what's been going on, you are (quite naturally) fearing the worst. All may yet be fine; go along and see.

theoretica · 15 August 2019 at 10:50PM

What I suggest you do it prepare for the meeting by going over your original job description and the new one/changes. Think about both what you want and what you would accept and how to make a case that what you want is good for the business.

Blushing_Money_Spender · 15 August 2019 at 11:20PM

shortcrust wrote: »

I can't see the problem with this. It seems like a constructive approach. At the risk of stating the obvious, your employer and manager need to have a pretty big say in what is and isn't in your job description. You don't get a veto.

Thanks for the feedback. The issue I have is that I was doing the role for a full year before my Manager was employed. Why is mine the one that needs to change considering I exceeded the expectations in the year I performed the role? I'm worried my role will be given less responsibility particularly as it was mentioned that my salary would only be protected for a year! What happens after the year?

shortcrust · 16 August 2019 at 9:56AM

Blushing_Money_Spender wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback. The issue I have is that I was doing the role for a full year before my Manager was employed. Why is mine the one that needs to change considering I exceeded the expectations in the year I performed the role? I'm worried my role will be given less responsibility particularly as it was mentioned that my salary would only be protected for a year! What happens after the year?

If they cut your pay then you might have cause for constructive dismissal. There's loads of advice about that online if you google.

I don't really know what say about the other stuff. Managers manage. They decide how their team will carry out their work and it's really up to them to say who does what, and to large extent how they do it. There's nothing 'wrong' with a manager changing things even if everything's working well already. There are limits of course. You can't just tell a chef that they're now a bridge painter, but if you still turning up at roughly the same time and the same place and doing tasks that support the same type of business then it's probably fair.

Why is it your job description that needs to change? Because they're the boss.

Brynsam · 16 August 2019 at 10:13AM

Blushing_Money_Spender wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback. The issue I have is that I was doing the role for a full year before my Manager was employed. Why is mine the one that needs to change considering I exceeded the expectations in the year I performed the role? I'm worried my role will be given less responsibility particularly as it was mentioned that my salary would only be protected for a year! What happens after the year?

No good asking those sort of questions here. You need to be talking to your employer - and making a good strong case for keeping your responsibilities or possibly increasing them.

Don't get negative or defensive, or you'll damage your own case.

ACG · 16 August 2019 at 11:04AM

Blushing_Money_Spender wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback. The issue I have is that I was doing the role for a full year before my Manager was employed. Why is mine the one that needs to change considering I exceeded the expectations in the year I performed the role? I'm worried my role will be given less responsibility particularly as it was mentioned that my salary would only be protected for a year! What happens after the year?

Tell them that is what you want your current role to go back to.

It appears that is going to be negotiation so chances are it will alter a little but the alternative is you leave or stay as you are.

I would go in to the meeting and see what you can all agree then deal with it if you do not like the outcome.

snilloct1957 · 16 August 2019 at 11:13AM

You are obviously still frazzled by the previous investigation concerning your work and fearing the worst from this meeting that it will be more of the same. Is it possible to take a union rep into the meeting or maybe a welfare officer? Ask for the meeting to be minuted so everyone has a written record of what was said, so as to prevent confusion later on.

lincroft1710 · 16 August 2019 at 6:38PM

Trying to survive as a business is not easy, it has to adapt and keep on adapting. What worked or sold last week won't necessarily work or sell next week. Therefore a business has to utilise its resources to its best advantage and that means moving people into roles they may not like or may not have signed up for.

But that is work in the 2nd and 3rd decades of the 21st century. Adapt or perish!

No idea what to do...

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free