OT : Any HR lawyers about

sketchley

davmaggs wrote:

As for involving HR you'd have to be insane. They aren't there to help staff (despite what nonsense they spout), they are there purely to protect the business.

Agreed. However you can use this to your advantage. HR will protect the business, so if they are good at what they do, they will know how constructive dismissal works and will ensure that any grievance is handle correctly by the book. That includes listening to you. What's more they will know the cost and bad publicity that employment tribuneral will cause if they don't play by the book. A good HR department will hear your greivance, conceed some points, and not accept others as it illustrates their desire to address the problems in a fair and unbiased way, and get the company the best deal possible which of course might also be a happy motivated employee.

gtvlusso

Sketchley wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

As for involving HR you'd have to be insane. They aren't there to help staff (despite what nonsense they spout), they are there purely to protect the business.

Agreed. However you can use this to your advantage. HR will protect the business, so if they are good at what they do, they will know how constructive dismissal works and will ensure that any grievance is handle correctly by the book. That includes listening to you. What's more they will know the cost and bad publicity that employment tribuneral will cause if they don't play by the book. A good HR department will hear your greivance, conceed some points, and not accept others as it illustrates their desire to address the problems in a fair and unbiased way, and get the company the best deal possible which of course might also be a happy motivated employee.

I agree - HR are not there for the employee. I did not involve them, however, we have due process for promotion and pay increases/grades and this goes through HR approval for cost control purposes, so my boss had no options but to involve them. Kinda defeats the object of my cost centre in reality!

This is not one that I am gonna win internally, no matter how much support my boss gives it or what charges he leads - and he has done his fair shout.

I don't think that this is grievance material, it is just annoying. I have had to take several of my team through grievance procedures and as a manager they are no picnic. Something I am going to avoid for my own case...Not at this employer, but I have won grievances at a previous employer and the end result was nothing changed and life got more complex.....

rjsterry

I mentioned it before, but I think it bears repeating: trying to save money by reducing the number of fluorescent tubes by 25% (which will have minimal impact on electricity usage) is either a stunt from someone trying to look like they are doing something, or a sign of utter desperation and terminal decline.

clarkey cat

It's clearly a very dim idea.

gtvlusso

rjsterry wrote:

I mentioned it before, but I think it bears repeating: trying to save money by reducing the number of fluorescent tubes by 25% (which will have minimal impact on electricity usage) is either a stunt from someone trying to look like they are doing something, or a sign of utter desperation and terminal decline.

Sad thing is; I kid you not. We even have reduced office opening hours. Bins have been removed and only 1 cleaner for an office with ~250 people.....

Waits for axe to fall....

clarkey cat

we've only got 4 male crappers (and no urinals) on a floor with about 300 people. I have to queue, agonisingly whenever Bungle comes calling, farting and sweating humiliatingly .

gtvlusso

clarkey cat wrote:

we've only got 4 male crappers (and no urinals) on a floor with about 300 people. I have to queue, agonisingly whenever Bungle comes calling, farting and sweating humiliatingly .

Holy Sh1t!!!!!! You have to be real careful then!! Making a tail is not an option! :shock:

rjsterry

gtvlusso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I mentioned it before, but I think it bears repeating: trying to save money by reducing the number of fluorescent tubes by 25% (which will have minimal impact on electricity usage) is either a stunt from someone trying to look like they are doing something, or a sign of utter desperation and terminal decline.

Sad thing is; I kid you not. We even have reduced office opening hours. Bins have been removed and only 1 cleaner for an office with ~250 people.....

Waits for axe to fall....

That's the sort of nonsense I've seen just before contractors have folded - trouble is, you don't find out for sure until the front door is locked one morning, and no one answers the phone. Don't wait.

walkingbootweather

gtvlusso wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

we've only got 4 male crappers (and no urinals) on a floor with about 300 people. I have to queue, agonisingly whenever Bungle comes calling, farting and sweating humiliatingly .

Holy Sh1t!!!!!! You have to be real careful then!! Making a tail is not an option! :shock:

Just have a squat over the MD's desk. I don't suspect he'd stand in your way from moving on then.

Can't you get a job in the Public Sector - they sit around all day drinking coffee, have gold plated pensions and soft toilet paper don't they?
runs away and hides....

sketchley

Maybe asking you line manager / HR for approval to speak to agency might be good idea. Point out the toilets, lights, bins, cleaner etc. Tell them you know this is going down and can they do the decent thing so you can bail with some dignity. Hey they may even be waying up options on who to keep and who to fire and this might help out.

You could also (subject to any legal / confidentuallity clause preventing you from doing so) tip off the agency that this is going on. They are going to be less reluctant to maintain a relationship with your company if they know it's about to go under. Which by the sounds of things it is.

As rjsterry says get out now

daviesee

gtvlusso wrote:

...I thought I could get around this by applying directly for the role, however, the agency says that this is still against the contract. Basically, I am unable to use this agency to find a new job......!

That, basically is bullish!t.
As an individual you can do what you want.
The agency may have signed a clause which restricts them, but not you.
Your choices:-
1. Stay put and negotiate.
2. Go direct.
3. Go to another agency.
4. Play poker with agency and threaten to leave. I have seen a few cave in on their "principles" at the sight of loss of money.

Good luck and remember, no matter how they try to tie you up, you can move at will. (Other company permitting).

gtvlusso

walkingbootweather wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

we've only got 4 male crappers (and no urinals) on a floor with about 300 people. I have to queue, agonisingly whenever Bungle comes calling, farting and sweating humiliatingly .

Holy Sh1t!!!!!! You have to be real careful then!! Making a tail is not an option! :shock:

Just have a squat over the MD's desk. I don't suspect he'd stand in your way from moving on then.

Can't you get a job in the Public Sector - they sit around all day drinking coffee, have gold plated pensions and soft toilet paper don't they?
runs away and hides....

I did get asked by a civil service mate about my incremental payment - i.e. He got 5% whatever his performance was, year in and year out in the civil service. I could not stop laughing.....incrementals in private industry...right!

The tables have definitely turned from private sector pay to favour public sector pay and conditions. In some cases; like Nurses, quite fairly I think.

Kieran_Burns

Did I miss something here?

Your boss is one of the good guys and you only need your bosses approval to have your application be processed by the Agency?

Seriously? I don't see the problem.

gtvlusso

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Did I miss something here?

Your boss is one of the good guys and you only need your bosses approval to have your application be processed by the Agency?

Seriously? I don't see the problem.

Yeah, I am in 2 minds about this. He has been fighting my corner internally and it may be a touch to far for him to do it externally as well......

Considering options.

sketchley

Judging by the fact they are taking light bulbs, only have noe cleaner, and 4 crappers for 300 people. You don't have many options left to consider.... I'd be putting number 1 first and doing all I could to get out.... Talk to you boss, hey maybe you could take him with you have you thought about that?

tailwindhome

daviesee wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

...I thought I could get around this by applying directly for the role, however, the agency says that this is still against the contract. Basically, I am unable to use this agency to find a new job......!

That, basically is bullish!t.
As an individual you can do what you want.
The agency may have signed a clause which restricts them, but not you.

As an individual he can apply for the job.

This relies on 2 things.

1- The agency being pig sh1te stupid enough to tell him who their client is.
2- The client being willing to take applications from individuals/ via other agencies.

daviesee wrote:

4. Play poker with agency and threaten to leave. I have seen a few cave in on their "principles" at the sight of loss of money.

That makes no sense.....however I may be misunderstanding.

Why would the agency care if GTV quits his job?

.........

There is also option 5. Bide your time, polish up your CV and wait for your redundancy.


@GTV

Have you found out where the new role is?

Were you not going to emigrate to Oz?

walkingbootweather

Sketchley wrote:

Judging by the fact they ... have .... 4 crappers for 300 people. ... I'd be putting number 1 first

Under the circumstances I'd be more worried about the number 2s :roll:

daviesee

TailWindHome wrote:

daviesee wrote:

4. Play poker with agency and threaten to leave. I have seen a few cave in on their "principles" at the sight of loss of money.

That makes no sense.....however I may be misunderstanding.

Why would the agency care if GTV quits his job?

:oops: :oops: :oops:
Having trawled through the posts, I lost track of the fact he wasn't working through the agency and thought they would lose out that way. My wrong. Probably negates most of my earlier post too. :oops:
New thought.
How about quitting in disgust. Go away for a couple of weeks holiday and surprise, surprise - an offer "conveniently" lands on the doorstep of an unemployed worker? Depends on the cooperation of the agency though. And some of these contracts have a 13 week exclusion clause to negate just this kind of technique.
Bummer really.

cyclist0_7

Have been reading the correspondance your query has prompted and the answer is obviously 'No'. What you are getting is a load of well meaning advice but my perception is that your appraisal of your position/ company is most probably right in all respects. You are probably backing a loser in dealing with them and some of their actions you describe would suggest they are not the most trustworthy of employers. So what to do? Well your intent in trying to contact legal opinion is sound altho so far fruitless. You could start off by talking to Citizens Advice or Trading Standards. Don't think they have the ability on this matter but they can be helpful in pointing you to other helpful sources. Are you in a trade union or staff organisation which can help? You might even just try phoning a trade union body, most people will go out of their way to help if you cry on their shoulder. There is also Liberty of which I am a member, they may help with advice. Certainly , like you, I see this as a restraint on your liberty to be employed and it would stick in my craw to accept the treatment you are faced with.
Best of luck.

cyclist0_7

Have been reading the correspondance your query has prompted and the answer is obviously 'No'. What you are getting is a load of well meaning advice but my perception is that your appraisal of your position/ company is most probably right in all respects. You are probably backing a loser in dealing with them and some of their actions you describe would suggest they are not the most trustworthy of employers. So what to do? Well your intent in trying to contact legal opinion is sound altho so far fruitless. You could start off by talking to Citizens Advice or Trading Standards. Don't think they have the ability on this matter but they can be helpful in pointing you to other helpful sources. Are you in a trade union or staff organisation which can help? You might even just try phoning a trade union body, most people will go out of their way to help if you cry on their shoulder. There is also Liberty of which I am a member, they may help with advice. Certainly , like you, I see this as a restraint on your liberty to be employed and it would stick in my craw to accept the treatment you are faced with.
Best of luck.

tailwindhome

cyclist0_7 wrote:

You might even just try phoning a trade union body, most people will go out of their way to help if you cry on their shoulder. There is also Liberty of which I am a member, they may help with advice. Certainly , like you, I see this as a restraint on your liberty to be employed and it would stick in my craw to accept the treatment you are faced with.
Best of luck.

The Trade Union are highly unlikely to offer free advice to someone who isn't a member. In fact if the sh1t hits the fan the trade union will be only too happy to ensure their members get the best deal and will not give a monkeys about non members.

As I said on my first post IANAL, but I would be interested to know what law can possibly force an agency to reveal who their client is and then compel them put GTV forward for the vacancy.

cyclist0_7

Tailwind may be right about the response from a trade union,but that has not always been my experience when dealing with people.It is not Arthur Scargill he is likely to find at the other end of the phone but hopefully some reasonable minded lawyer who will hear him out. Do you think that all bike factories are staffed by cycling fanatics? If not then why would you expect everybody working for a trade union to be a a narrow minded bigot? What has Lusso to lose by trying?
As to what law there can be, is that not what we are trying to find out? It's not opinions that Lusso is short of, it's facts. All you are suggesting is that he pray to St Jude.

tailwindhome

cyclist0_7 wrote:

It is not Arthur Scargill he is likely to find at the other end of the phone but hopefully some reasonable minded lawyer who will hear him out. Do you think that all bike factories are staffed by cycling fanatics? If not then why would you expect everybody working for a trade union to be a a narrow minded bigot? .

I didn't suggest that Trade Unions were staffed by narrow minded bigots.

I'm sure the RAC is staffed by some really great people and have excellent knowledgeable mechanics. However they are highly unlikely to come to fix my car. Mostly as I'm not a member and haven't paid for their services.

That's just how the world works.

cyclist0_7

Funnily enough I have phoned up the AA to ask for legal advice when I wasn't a member. They gave it altho it didn't help me. I didn't ask or expect that they would start taking action on my behalf nor would I expect Lusso would at best get anything other than advice, but that is what he needs. He is in the business of 'by indirections, find directions out'.He cries on their shoulder and if his case is just, most people will respond by trying to help. I am by nature and experience a Cynic but most people have a well sharpened sense of justice and it is to them Lusso will be trying to appeal, not some self seeking institution.

First.Aspect

Have you thought about progressing up the chain with the recruitment agency to see if you can make progress?

It seems to me that they have a conflict of interests between two clients. I'm pretty sure that the client who is recruiting at the moment will have commissioned the agency to find the best person. Not the best person who isn't currently working for their competitors or the best currently unemployed person.

I have a hunch you have been fed a "computer says no" line which has a basis in an agreement not to headhunt, but without a working understanding of where headhunting ends and recruiting starts.

bobinski

Most Lawyers will give you 30 min of free legal advice. If in your position I would contact say Bindmans...
http://www.bindmans.com/what-we-do/view/employment
as a start and see if they might give you some preliminary advice. Thats the first firm I can think of but there are lots.

You may make some progress with this. I would like to think there is an arguable restraint of trade point here IF the RA is so dominant in your niche sector that you are effectively preventing from having access to similar niche employment as a result of their contract with our current employer. I am confused though-they have not head hunted you. So their explanantion makes no sense. You have approached them to be placed with possible jobs.It is not the same thing. And taking this higher at the food chain at he RA may result in someone acknowledging this. So I would do this too.
Do you know if their contract obliges them have to disclose to your current employer approaches by you for alternative work? If so that might also add to the restraint of trade argument.

Apart fronm that and to lighten your mood at the weekend have you seen Head Hunters?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr ... ilm-review

as good a film as you will ever see and may allow you to vent some frustration at the key protagonist as well!

sufferingpete

My tuppence worth.

Firstly you are unhappy with your present employer therefore find another. Send CV, linked in, online.

Recruitment agencies are not usually very good.

Sometimes they advertise for jobs that don't exist in order to get a stock of CV's don't get suckered!

On first contact with an agent always find out where it is maybe not the company but the location- then you should be able to find the company ( probably too late for you). For example; "I cycle to work how far is it what facilities are there". Always find out the top rate and the hours.

Agencies always advertise the top price so don't believe it exist until offered by the actual employer. Agencied get paid on a percentage of offered salery so it is in their intresst ot maximise it.

Applying direct helps the employer since the don't have to pay the exorbitant fee.