Workplace Bullying

This weekends launch of a new version of a book by political journalist Andrew Rawnsley, and the relaunch of the Observer in a new format, all in the year of a UK general election have brought to the front pages of many newspapers the issues of Workplace Bullying.

But, unfortunately the political tones and repercussions in a general election year, plus the address and behaviour of the main players, has tilted the debate towards politics and media intervention over bullying in the workplace

Political bullying

Lets start with the basics, before we get into what happened on Sunday 21^st February 2010. Journalist Andrew Rawnsley re launches his book, which focuses on the 13 years (so far) of Labour power in the UK. He has added sections which focus on the term of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, which includes some input on Gordon Brown’s well politically documented temper. But Rawnsley steps a little further ahead and alleges he has solid sources.

On Saturday 20^th February, Labour (unofficially) launches its 2010 election campaign with a slogan “A fair future for all!” The day after Rawnsley launches his book with much media coverage, thanks to the relaunch of the Observer. Hence the next headline is a set of denials from both the Cabinet Office and the Labour party denying the allegation.

By midday, the political journalists have spotted the holes in both set of responses – no investigation, but no denial of a conversation between Cabinet Office Secretary Sir Gus O’Donell and Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This results in a second set of press releases or repress releases from again both the Cabinet Office and the Labour Party tightening their positions.

National Bullying Helpline

Come late afternoon, and the media cameras have moved to the home of Christine Pratt, founder of the National Bullying Helpline. She appeared earlier in the day in interview to Adam Boulton on SkyNews, alleging that the fist set of denials by the Cabinet Office and the Labour Party were incorrect, and that the charity had been contacted on 3 or 4 occasions with issues associated with 10 Downing Street.

This results in a third set of press releases or repress releases from again both the Cabinet Office and the Labour Party tightening their positions, with private briefings suggesting that the charities position was politically motivated. They also state that there are procedures for dealing with such issues.

By today, Monday 22^nd, the politics and media scrutiny of the politics has overtaken the issues of bullying. Professor Cary Cooper resigns as a patron of the charity, Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith rebukes Pratt for opening one of her constituents to the media, and Pratt’s local Labour MP advises the media that she cut all ties to Pratt in 2008 over issues of judgement.

Workplace Bullying

It seems sad to me that the issue of workplace bullying have been lost in the whole political debate. But by that in a general election year should come as no surprise, even though Christine Pratt keeps trying to say in interviews this morning that is not the issues. She’s either politically or media naive, and I don’t know which.

The key for me comes down to: what is bullying? The Oxford English Dictionary says that it is “a person using strength or power to coerce others by fear.” If I then refer to Roget’s Thesaurus for politics tactics, it refers me to 688 Conduct, under which it notes Governance 733 with the words: lifemanship, gamesmanship, one-upmanship.

So, politics is a game of one-upmanship, and bullying is an issue of strength or power coercion. If you place a man with a well-documented short temper and high drive in the highest political office, should we be surprised that some working around him interprets this as bullying? I don’t think so either, not that in any way that I am accusing Gordon Brown of being a bully. It’s a matter of workplace environment and perspective.

Bullying environment

All bullying personally is an issue of environment and personal perspective. I don’t know any boss – myself included – who hasn’t been accused of bullying at some point in their career. Sorry, but it comes with the territory, when one person feels that they are not being heard or not making the progress that they want to be.

Is this an excuse then to reject it? I hope not, much like the debate around what does go on in 10 Downing Street has moved on to politics.

Much as though I do believe that all bosses have to accept that personal perspective of some employees at some times will lead them to accuse the boss of being a bully, there is real issue here.

There are bullying bosses, and there are bullying workplace environments. The reason they exist is because bosses feel the power, and want to exert it over everything in their environment. Then the line managers pick up on this “what’s OK” culture, and it all filters down. I am a great believer in the trickle down theory, and this is one of the pieces of evidence.

The problem with workplace bullying comes when it goes unnoticed, or known but unaddressed. That’s why we should all be supporting the National Bullying Helpline as a way in which such affected employees can get out from workplace hell, over the numerous I see seeking new opportunities because they didn’t get on with their boss. However, those in employment they enjoy and are good at but feel bullied probably now won’t engage the charity because of the media attraction it has gained through Christine Pratt’s poor timing judgement and naivety. Cary Cooper is right in his resignation statement that she has wrongfully broken confidences.

Workplace Bullying advice

If you are in a situation where you think you are being bullied, what should you do?

The best guide I could find was at Direct.gov.uk, which states:

• Before taking action – speak to a friend or trusted work colleague
• What to do if you are bullied at work – Employers have a ‘duty of care’ to their employees and this includes dealing with bullying at work
• Get advice – Speak to someone about how you might deal with the problem informally, such as: employee representative (ie: trade union); human resources department
• Talk to the bully
• Keep a written record or diary
• Making a formal complaint – if you are getting no where, and still feel bullied, then make a formal complaint

It is a great pity today that the message of workplace bullying has been lost in the politics. But then in an election year, what did we expect?

Good Luck!

===================================================================

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

If you want to check the suitability of your existing CV, then get a FREE CV review

===================================================================

Sex at work!

Today is the last Friday before Christmas, a traditional night for many employers to arrange their office party. On the menu will be: fun, merryment, traditional Christmas meal, over indulgence on the alcohol, then bring on Noddie Holder and a dance floor!

Plus it is the one time in the year that legally under mistletoe you can express your hearts desire for the hottie from accounts: be they male, female, or other wise.

But here’s just a thought, when you wake up on Saturday morning, or the reality of the later disciplinary procedure and subsequent dismissal hits you: Sex at work just doesn’t work!

Sex v Romance

I have lived and worked under various HR rules about relationships within the working environment, but none of them seem to acknowledge let alone accept that when more than one person works in close proximity to another, that there is a fair or even sure bet that some of them will share more than a quick photocopier experience. Statistics suggest that between 25% and 35% of marriages or relationships start at work – and not all of these are between colleagues in the same company. I wonder how many receptionists have fallen for the dishy Postman? I know of at least six companies who in their standard training manual of the past, had various written tactics on how to schmooze your way past a female receptionist.

But there is a huge difference between an office romance and a quickly photocopier compromised fumble at the Christmas party. Apart from all the interesting medical problems there could be to your health, there are an increasing number of harassment or coercion cases associated with inappropriate contact between work colleagues. Today the newspapers report on the sale by lottery of a house in Cornwall by an embittered ex-wife of a surgeon, who just desired his secretary.

Sex in the office

Apart from the fact that it is never going to be comfortable, that a pile of paper doesn’t make a bed of silk sheets, and that you will never look on the storage cupboard in the same way ever again – its also horrible disruptive to your work patterns.

I have experience of this from when I worked in Kent on the Channel Tunnel team. The business unit was growing well, and as a result we were taking on people quickly – lesson1: fast expansion for growth means you take your eye off of the ball. Every quarter we would have a formal review of revenue streams in front of the Director, and it was while preparing my paperwork for the forth coming review I noticed that our unpaid but billed sum had risen from the last quarter. I was assured by the Billing Team that all was OK and under control, but on having a chat with some other managers going in for the same review, they had the same problem. The review was the following Thursday, and when I came into the office on the Tuesday was grabbed by the General Managers assistant to be told the latest gossip: the Head of the Billing Team had been caught filling one of his admin assistants on the boardroom table the previous night by the security guard! Lesson2 – small offices make for wildfire gossip; Lesson3 – if you are tempted, do it outside the office environment. The quarterly review was immediately cancelled, as a quick investigation found that in a team of nine people there were three couples, an one “still in discussions” threesome. The result was although billings were up 10%, actual revenue was down by 15% – numbers can tell you much about an office.

Its a relationship, not just sex

The risks of office relationships are far wider, broader and more complex than the where of meeting and romancing.

The reason you both probably got tempted was that you spent so much time together. But of it all falls apart and breaks down, that is also the biggest problem. Most people spend more time in the office than they do at home, so trying to avoid each other may not be an option without one person leaving or requesting a transfer. When that does occur, then in the far more litigious society in which we live, the nominal junior titled partner in the relationship could easily call in a lawyer for a case of forced into a relationship/sex. Normally, unless settled quickly, these cases result in large payouts and the dismissal of both parties: and you thought looking for a new job after theft or fraud was difficult!

Lets say that it all works out OK in the relationship department, you still have to face the work environment. All couples need “me” time, and when you are together both in the office and outside, tensions can rise – innocent normal work with a colleagues can be seen by your partner as flirtation. These little signs of affection and jealousy can easily be spotted by colleagues, and once your working colleagues know it is difficult to keep a lid on an office romance. Further, once the knowledge is out, this can leads to accusations of favouritism, or now management know, enforced under HR rules separation. You and your partner are again forced to make career choices at an early stage of a relationship, over trying to decide and work on having a future together.

Rules of Office Relationships

The rules of office relationships are quite simple, and easy – think about the “what happens if it all goes wrong” over the lovey dovey bit!

1. Never date anyone in the office if either of you have been there for less than a year. Establish your and their career first, and don’t risk being ejected during your trial period for gross misconduct
2. Make friends, but don’t take anything beyond the casual stage in front of colleagues , or in/close to the office
3. Know that you can trust this person first, before dating. Can you tell them a secret, and does it go around the office? If yes, forget it – your relationship will never stand the need for being discrete and silent at the early stages
4. Be subtle: in your approach, your feelings and your actions. An obvious school kid chat-up line followed by a swift rejection could easily mean the end of your career
5. If you feel something more, then don’t use the offices communications system. Keep all correspondence off of your/their eMail, phone and mobile
6. At an early stage, chat about what you are both risking, particularly manager/junior
7. Stay professional by keeping all office communication in the office. Don’t bad mouth customers or colleagues, and don’t break office confidences
8. If it breaks down, work on keeping the communication open and civil. Let the other party down easily and slowly, and always resist revenge
9. If it gets serious, be open with your managers and seek a solution. You both want the best for each other. If colleagues find out first, then lying will only fuel gossip
10. Finally, always use a condom – one third of pregnancies are unplanned

Good Luck!

===================================================================

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

If you want to check the suitability of your existing CV, then get a FREE CV review

===================================================================

Employment Dismissal

Sarah asks: I am looking for work after employment dismissal, and need some help. I was dismissed from my last job as I didn’t meet the targets, was making mistakes as a result of being stressed, and was late on two occasions. So, in summary, I think that has also gone against me. I was employed there from November 2008 to March 2009, and I had a job for a month earlier in 2008. If I delete either job from my CV, how can explain the massive gap?

In answer:
Firstly, and I keep saying this because so many people look for excuses over the ease of telling the truth rather than being rejected later – never ever lie in a job application!

I realise this next question may be seem daft, but have you actually looked at the dismissal letter they gave you at your exit interview? You probably did listen to the words they were saying – certainly, from what you confess in asking this question could add up to a series of minor incidents and hence dismissal – but have you actually read the dismissal letter?

Reasons for Employment Dismissal

Why do I ask this? Because of the rise in legal cases involving dismissed employees suing ex-employer for either constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal or unfair dismissal, employers seek the strongest legal way of dismissing employees. Hence, much as though an employee may have factually committed errors in a particular area, as long as they didn’t commit a crime and create a resultant crown case, employers will seek a mutual and method of clear dismissal which allows the employee a better/at worst neutral chance of later employment. This one issue, aside from money which is normally only available in constructive dismissal cases, is the issue most unfair dismissal cases will be created on.

I think if you look at the dismissal letter, I think therefore the simple answer will be: as the job lasted less than six months (ie: the trial period), you and the job just didn’t work out in trial. You hence were probably not technically dismissed, you just didn’t complete the trial period. The worst thing your reference will say are your dates of employment, and the fact you were not offered a permanent contract.

Now, here’s the answer on moving forward and gaining employment. With such a patchy recent record of short periods of employment, any future employer will have two question:

• Why you are applying for their job
• Why you will stick at this job

You hence need to come up with the answers to these two questions. This needs to encompass the reason as to why you won’t make the same mistakes in your next job application, why its the right career/job for you, and why you are wholly committed.

Hence, there is no need to explain the massive gap. Just focus on why the next job is wholly right for you.

Good Luck!

===================================================================

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

If you want to check the suitability of your existing CV, then get a FREE CV review

===================================================================

Racial Discrimination in Employment

It is personally disapointing to return to the subject of Racial Discrimination in Employment, but unfortunately I think it is wholly appropriate.

“Civil servants send out bogus CVs”

Since the start of the year, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since 1929, the Department of Work and Pensions have created 2000 false people – half with British styled names, half with ethnic styled names – and sent out 1000 job applications (a minimum of 2 per job advertised, one British name and one ethnic name), to various employers and employment agencies. If employers responded to these job applications, the CV’s noted a mobile number which the employers called. A civil servant then returned the call to advise them of the exercise, and apologise for the inconvenience.

What was the driving reason behind this study? To see if employers discriminated against job applicants simply because of their name. The research is due to be published later this summer. Solicitor General Vera Baird revealed the initial findings: “there was quite a strong sense that there is race discrimination going on.” The output will be used by Ms Baird, who is presently piloting Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill through the Commons, confirmed that a no-names in job application rule could be added to the Bill: “It could theoretically help, particularly young women. It might help because we are sure there’s a lot of pregnancy discrimination.”

Gareth Elliott, of the British Chambers of Commerce, said it had strongly advised against the research because it was “unethical and a complete waste of time. We are completely shocked to hear the DWP has gone ahead. Businesses have enough on their plate without having to deal with the underhand tactics of the DWP.”

Theresa May, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, also criticised the operation as a “waste of taxpayers’ cash.” She backed moves to clamp down on discrimination but said the idea of banning bosses from initially requiring the names of job applicants was ‘unworkable’.

Implement the existing Law!

So, what are my thoughts? I have written on the issue of Racial Discrimination in Employment before, when BBCWest undertook a similar mini-study in our home town of Bristol. Then, Tom Hadley, of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), said: “We would expect agencies within the REC membership to challenge that kind of discriminatory instruction and to walk away from the business if they had to – because that is how seriously we take this particular issue. It shows there’s still a lot of work we need to do. We will not tolerate this kind of discriminatory behaviour.”

While researching this article, I undertook a Google search on the term: “Civil servants send out bogus CVs.” Stormfront, the right wing political forum (moto: White Pride, World Wide), took 2 out of the first 10 results – no good!

Personally, I think its quite simple: EXISTING LAW NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED. The existing law is good enough, so why not just implement it over adding to it

Does racism exist in employment? It exists in the UK, so yes it exists in employment, and the only way to stamp it out is to continue with such testing exercises from a Governmental level. Trading Standards undertake such exercises for goods being sold, so why not ask them to each undertake one study per annum? The problem is not within the existing law, it is just that I have yet to see one employer or recruitment agency make the front page – or even page10 – of any red top or tabloid, thanks to the fine imposed on them for racial discrimination in employment practise. Law not implemented is a waste of paper!

Let’s take the alternate position, and say that names were removed from job applications until interview stage. Firstly, do we think that the racism that exists now would instantly disappear, and suddenly the level of ethnic minority employment would rise? No, and in fact the problem would be that less evidence would exist – and hence less opportunity to prosecute racist employers. The only outcome would be that ethnic minorities would get more interviews, all things being equal.

If we take one comment form Ms Vera – “It might help because we are sure there’s a lot of pregnancy discrimination” – then I’d like to help her out, and say: YES, IT DOES EXIST! The reason pregnancy discrimination exists for already pregnant women job applicants, is that the moment I pick up the phone as an SME business to get Employers Liability insurance for a new pregnant employee is that the quote is equal to all that of our other employee’s added together! If the lady is already employed and then becomes pregnant, then she’s covered at same cost – its just if I employ an new employee who is already pregnant that the quote goes through the roof. The reason for this is simply, has Ms Vera seen the adverts for no-win, no-cost solicitors that run continually on SkyNews? If Ms Vera sorts out the insurance industry, and then the fact that under the new maternity laws said potential new employee could take 2years out, during which I still have keep their job open and pay them, then I think she might well find a solution which doesn’t mean pregnant women are discriminated against. I’d like to see a solution for pregnant women getting employed by SME’s, but the reality of the commercial structure doesn’t exist in the current Government frame work

Staying on the idea of “removing names from CV’s,” then there is one last problem of implementation brought on by technology. Every job coach, CV writer and personal brand expert is presently saying: If you want to get employed, keep your personal brand consistent. This means that people use the same words in their social media personal profile as their CV. So, accepting that the “no names in CV’s” law is implemented, and that CV scanning is on the increase, how long would it take a piece of technology to scan the words in the CV against every document on the internet? No need to worry about answering that, as CopyVio can do it in a minute or less. Hence although John Smith of Accasia Avenue may remove or even change his name at present, I can get around all of that by Googling him and some key phrases from his CV. At the moment this reveals that 50% of John Smith’s lie on their CV’s, 15% change their names, another 15% take drugs activly – which as an HGV recruiter means they would fail their DVLA medical, costing me £120. Having a name or not is presently not a bar to finding someone with modern technology

In summary, I think this is a great study which should be repeated in a sustainable way to ensure the existing law is correctly and properly implemented for the good of all British citizens. However, adding a no-name clause to a bill is costly, and wouldn’t in reality solve the problem – it would just add to the cost of recruitment, there by reducing job openings. Racism is wrong and should be wholly kicked out, but adding to the existing legislative pile is pointless unless you intend to implement and police it.

One last point: my next step – I intend to write something to my MP, Ms Vera and Harriet Harman, pleading for them to just implement the existing law. When I have written it, I will publish it here

Good Luck!

Sacked Job Search

photo credit: woodleywonderworks

Rob asks: Can you be sacked for looking for another job? A friend of mine works nights and wants to go onto days as his wife is pregnant. His work wants him on nights and wont change anything for him so he has started to look for another job. His boss noticed his cv posted on a job site and hauled him into the office and has threatened to ‘let him go’ as he is “not 100% committed to his job.” I cannot believe this is legal, does anyone know the law on this? Quoting the actual law would be great but any help would be good.

In answer:
Yes, in a majority of cases, sacking someone for looking for work would be illegal. There as always are some exceptions – safety issues, retained Government work, military, etc – but if a case were brought to court where by it was the reason stated or could be proved to be the underlying case that they were sacked for looking for other work, then yes it would be illegal.

Under the European Human Rights directive, and the UK Employment Laws brought in under Maggie Thatcher to curtail the union powers, freedom of the worker is sacrosanct in basic employment rights. Employers can change secondary rights – such as notice periods, and timings of wage payment – but primary rights are non-negotiable and written in law. In your friends case, the primary right is the choice to leave the work of the employer, while the secondary right which will be in his contract of employment is the notice period.

But here’s the problem, although it is quite minor compared to the employers potential liability. Posting your CV openly on a common jobs board is frankly daft. They all have the option to withhold your CV from common view, and just to let it be viewed by employers when you select. Openly posting your CV on a jobs board is almost as good as posting daft remarks about your employer on Facebook – for which people have been sacked.

The employers side though is more problematic. If your friend has written to his employer stating he wants to under take day time work, then under UK Employment Law the employer has to give that due consideration, and reply in writing as to why he can’t presently allow that. UK law is not yet up to European law on maternity and partner rights, but if he were sat in mainland Europe the employer would need to find a reason to refuse his request based on a more limited set of options. If your friend has put his request in writing, been refused, been found looking for work and hence sacked – then that’s a pretty good case for constructive dismissal.

Get your friend to remove his CV from the jobs board. Then make sure he has put in writing again his request for moving to day work in light of his wife’s pregnancy and increased needs for support during their child’s early months. A reasonable employer would debate a change and try to agree something – an unreasonable employer would sack him first, and consult his lawyer second.

Now the cat is out of the bag due to your friends poor tactical choice, he needs to make sure that the legal side of offering reasonable consideration is covered, before any potential court case.

Good Luck!

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

Communication is Employment

The news of the dismissal of PC Steve Bettley from Merseyside Police, after his name was found on the BNP’s membership list, has escalated the issue of reaction to this incident.

When the list of BNP “members” was released in November 2008, PC Bettley who was at one time the driver for Merseyside Chief chief constable Bernard Hogan Howe, was suspended from duty. Following an investigation and resultant disciplinary inquiry, Bettley was dismissed after it was concluded he had “knowingly been a member of the BNP.” A ban on serving police officers joining or promoting the BNP was introduced by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2004.

A Merseyside Police spokeswoman said: “A police misconduct panel has dismissed Constable Steve Bettley after concluding he had knowingly been a member of the British National Party from March 2007 and up to March 2008.” Having consulted with the Black Police Association and the forces Independent Advisory Group, Deputy Chief Constable Bernard Lawson added: “We have an overriding legal duty to promote race equality and retain public confidence.”

Bettley intends to appeal the decision, and Ian Leyland, secretary of the Merseyside Police Federation, said Mr Bettley accepted his name was on the BNP list enrolled in the party by a family member without his knowledge, but he denied being a member of the party and he planned to appeal against the dismissal: “Constable Bettley would like to place on record that he condemns racism and does not support the views of the British National Party.”

The questions from an HR view point are three fold:

1. Was Bettley enrolled in the BNP with his knowledge? Lets accept at present perhaps he didn’t know until his membership pack or acknolwedgement arrived on his doorstep. So the follow on question is: When did Bettley know he was “a member” of the BNP?
2. What did he do to end his membership?
3. Knowing the potential employment consequences, how did he advise his employers of the incident?

In assessing the incident, I think the construction of a timeline is useful. It seems Bettley accepts that he was enrolled as a member of the BNP from March 2007 – so it seems logical that he would have known of the membership soon afterwards. Even if he didn’t know then, he would have known when his membership renewal request came through the post – so March 2008 at latest. But it seems that even that did not prompt a discussion with the Police Federation, or with his employers – which was prompted after the release of the BNP membership list in November 2008. Effectively the timeline shows that in 18months, Bettley did nothing to seek advice from the Police Federation or seek discussion with his employer.

Often in disciplinary issues, it is the how of an incident is handled as well as the when, as much as the fact which is key in the outcome. The fact PC Bettley at minimum didn’t liaise or communicate to his employers for at least six months at minimum leads me to conclude presently with Vinny Tomlinson, chairman of the Merseyside Black Police Association, who said that said he was “satisfied that Pc Stephen Bettley was either a member or supportive of the aims and objectives of the BNP, and therefore commend the inevitable decision made by Merseyside Police to dismiss him from service.”

Any neutral would come to the same conclusion, give the time line. If you think you have a problem at work, seek early advice and discussion.

Good Luck!

Sacked!

photo credit: Tavallai

Jo asks: I have just been sacked from my job and wondering about CV? I was sacked with a week’s notice for failing to keep up with the demands of my job. I have been told I cannot have a reference as I am a sacked employee and now am not sure what I can say in interviews or on my CV when I cannot provide a reference. Please help me!!!

In answer:
What were the reason – in detail – that you were sacked? “Failing to keep up with the demands of a job” could mean anything from you were consistently late, to not being given adequate training and as a consequence under performed?

I am going to suppose that as you ask the question in public, you accept you did something wrong but may be that it’s in minor dispute. Believe me, almost everyone who is sacked thinks it was unfair.

Firstly, unless it is written in to your contract or you are in a regulated industry such as Financial Services or Childcare for instance, then your employer doesn’t need to provide you with a reference.

However, secondly, why you want a negative reference? Employers will restrict their negative comments for fear of legal recrimination, but words along the lines of “we terminated the contract of” are less helpful as they keep the issue open, than a well honed set of words in a CV and an honest appraisal in interview.

How long were you employed there? Less than six months – in some cases 12months – and legally you were still on trial. I always recommend that employees include any job that lasts for 30days or longer, but any new employer will expect you to be honest about why that job didn’t work out, and that you are applying those lessons.

If the reason is more negative in potential perception, then what ever you do don’t mention the reason in your CV or job application. Any issues in the past are always best left there in your CV, and dealt with in an honest “but this is what I learnt, and its behind me” manner. If the answer is that the root cause stemmed from your personal life, then make sure that is totally resolved.

Employers are human beings with both good and bad points – honestly, they are much like you are I, they are not polished chromium gods. They do expect enthusiasm for their job, a set of existing skills or attitudes which mean you can do or be trained to do the job, and reliability of doing the job when employed. Tick those three boxes, and the job can be yours. To do that, you need to communicate – what went wrong, how you solved it, and (assuredly) why its behind you.

Communication is the base and root of all good employment, so make sure you build that from day one in any job application, and you will be employed soon enough . No one is perfect, but good honest communication solves many human foibles.

Good Luck!

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

Disciplinary procedure

In light of the recent cases of use of the disciplinary procedure within the BBC with regards to Jonathan Ross and Carole Thatcher, there are valuable lessons that employees can learn from how to handle disciplinary procedure issues once you find yourself advised that you are subject to a discipline case.

Both Ross and Thatcher commited acts of dubious to high moral stupidity, while on duty for an employer – the BBC. But it is how they handled the cases once advised they were under the BBC’s disciplinary procedures that was key to defining their personal outcomes.

The media have suggested in their reporting and editorial copy, that one was retained because he was key to the BBC’s commercial success, while the other was a hounded or hated child of an ex-Prime Minister. I can not comment as no one in the public environment – rightly – has full access to the full information: disciplinary procedures remain private. But, although there may be some evidence behind these rumours, and much as though those internal drivers are an input to the decisions making process, once a disciplinary procedure has been started all organisations are legally obliged by their own defined procedures, and hence will pay more attention and undertake the process to these procedures. No organisation, and particularly the BBC wants to be sued by a disgruntled dismissed ex-employee through an employment tribunal, where there are often few clear and outright winners and hence high legal costs. Add in the bad publicity and its effects on future recruitment, most organisations will choose a negotiated settlement over testing their own procedures in a high-cost court.

Within 48hours of both incidents, one party had issued an apology while the other resolutely refused to. It is interesting to see how Ross issued his apology – he aplogised to the wronged party (the wonderful actor Andrew Sachs), over going into detail of the act committed. The key here is that the employer – the BBC – had a clear and quick acknowledgement of wanting to reach a resolution by Ross, without admitting liability.

In Thatcher’s case, once advised of the issue, a defence was thrown up which suggested it was a private matter over trying to suggest a resolution was being sought. Does it matter how the case came to light? No – because most organisations will have an internal employee complaints procedure, which allows them to manage their internal PR and not be subject to charges of breaking basic national or employment law. Hence Thatcher’s agent suggest that it was an internal snitch with an agenda doesn’t really matter under employment law – it’s the fact an issue has been raised which needs to be addressed.

Another defence issue being brought up by Thatcher’s agent is that the time scale between the issue occurring and the complaint being raised is key. Actually, as long as it is raised within a reasonable timescale – often taken to be in proportion to the possible offence committed – it could be up to anytime, but is often legally suggested to be within a 90day/one year window. Generally, issues which break basic national or employment law – such as racial discrimination – could be fairly brought up at any time in the following 12months. How does an employee know how serious an issue is? Most organisations have an induction procedure followed up by a communications procedure, which advises of the companies values and key policies, and where in example they fit into the companies assessment of either a minor or major misdemeanour under their disciplinary procedures.

Media people often have a strong version in their contract of employment – often a separate section over a paragraph in a standard employee contract – in case the employee brings the organisation into disrepute. The reason for this is that clearly media operations have a higher profile over normal commercial operation employees, and hence anything and everything they say comes into a greater spotlight. However, this is a legal catch-all clause for the unseen instances, such as when the membership list of the British National Party leaked on to the internet.

Having entered the procedure, both employees were suspended. This would need to have been done in writing, with the letter outlining:

• The allegation or issue
• The state of the investigation
• The associated timescale
• The status of the employee
• A communications procedure – which may detail changes in who their manager is (often transferred to HR), as well as who they can communicate to

The key issue now for the employee, if they wish to retain their employment, is to reach a swift resolution. It often helps to have a friendly or experienced face to advise them, and also act as their independent “friend.” Friends are allowed to attend second level disciplinary meetings, and can be almost any person. If you have to pick a friend, then personally my suggestion is to choose them in the following order: Union representative; former HR manager or retired line manager; solicitor. Union representatives are the most effective, as they will know of similar cases in both your company as well as other similar companies, and will have access to some of the best legal HR advice. The use of a solicitor could terminate your opportunity to return to that employer if deployed too early, so hence I placed them last – you want to manage the situation, not escalate it.

In the Ross case, it was fairly clear from the speed and clarity of statements made by Director General Mark Thompson a week after transmission of the offending tape, that Ross had accepted his part in the incident, and fully accepted the judgement handed down. Thatcher’s agents protestation and even stronger suggestion that her and her client were now due an apology, that they miss calculated the situation and failed to take steps early enough.

Disciplinary procedures are not “exit conveyor belts” and often they have resolution doors written in to them. As the employee it is your duty if you want to retain your employment options to accept there is a middle ground, and to find it with your employer to be able to access a suitable solution.

Does this mean that finding a solution concludes that you got it wrong? No, and in what could have been minor situation like Thatcher’s where the BBC drafted an apology statement, the BBC wanted a solution – but at present it appears it was turned down and rejected. In the case of Ross, accepting the failure and more so publicly as he did, a solution was reached and against strong media and wider national criticism the management of the BBC supported his return.

The key for all employees is that whatever the situation when advised you are subject to a disciplinary situation, is that it is resolvable – in most cases, you can and will retain employment. The outcome after that point is subject to your willingness to be receptive to the issue, quick in showing willingness to reach a solution, and aware of the need to reach a middle ground if you want to retain your existing job. Not talking early enough and denying the problem will only conclude in one result – the exit door.

Good Luck!

===================================================================

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

If you want to check the suitability of your existing CV, then get a FREE CV review

===================================================================

Facebook: employment liability

We are on Facebook, the social network: you can find me here: http://profile.to/recruit/

A very socially cool website valued at over $1Bn US dollars, on Facebook you can:

• See comments from your friends and new people
• Play scrabble or poker
• Find out where people are right now
• What people think of others, including you
• What’s in their social diary
• Who they are dating/going further with

And you know that in a few hours time, thanks to a 2MegPixel camera in their mobile phone, the resulting evidence of the pub crawl will be online and in their Facebook page. I mean, how really cool of an inside look in any friends life is that – possibly too close?

But with regards employment, Facebook is both a godsend and a nightmare. Do you really want everyone from the North Pole to the South Pole, and any potential employer to see the photographic evidence of your weekend away?

I am hence very careful on who I am connected to on Facebook; and I don’t put stuff on my Facebook profile which could harm my personal or business reputation.

Two stories have recently hit the headlines about employee’s being disciplined from entries they made themselves on Facebook:

• Australian call centre worker Kyle Doyle, who after a grand night out and resultant hangover, pulled a sickie. His HR manager alerted by his manger asked for the certificated evidence, which then was responded to by an reference to his Facebook entry
• Virgin Atlantic sacked 13 staff at their Gatwick hub who criticised the company for lack of cleaning, and rated customers as “chav’s.” I think they could have got away with the former with a caution, but not with the later which potentially brought the company into disrepute

Much as though employers have to be more aware of the use of social networks and make allowances in employment contracts, that doesn’t mean it is all flowing in the employee’s direction. Hence when I am searching for people for clients, half the reason I have a Facebook page is that I can both find new and check on recommended potential employee’s – it is constantly amazing what you can find out, and how daft many are with their personal reputation.

Please, please, please – be aware of what information you place in public. Social networking and Facebook can be fun – but it can also get you sacked, or rejected from a job search.

Good Luck!

===================================================================

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

If you want to check the suitability of your existing CV, then get a FREE CV review

===================================================================