I am a solicitor, but not an employment solicitor so my thoughts here are basically those of a layman and I would take advice from someone who knows what they are talking about. But, if you had to push me for an opinion I would be tempted to do the following: 1. Print the email where you were promised the payrise. Keep it safe. 2. Email HR with a full timeline of the matter, attaching a copy of the payrise email and say that you are concerned about being invited to a recorded discussion about a job you had nothing to do with, can't help but notice the correlation with the discussion with your manager and will be taking appropriate advice on both the payrise issue and the unwarranted disciplinary procedure. Print that email, keep it safe. 3. Remember that HR's loyalty is always to the company and not staff but sometimes those interests align in that it is not in the company's interests to have to defend a constructive dismissal claim.
I'd say to the member go above the manager via HR if necessary (as an ex rep. Unless a person has a fear of doing it themselves. They would rather resolve the issue if they deem it an unfair managers response and get the union involved) Then is the time to raise a grievance through the proper channels and get the union involved to fight the case. If no joy. A verbal contract is not legally binding but if evidence can be proved that a verbal agreement took place. He may have a case. That's normal procedure at most companies.
I shared your post with my son-in-law who works in HR and he said recently someone at his place of work was promised promotion etc by a senior staff member - nothing happened - grievance taken out - turned out that staff member didn't have permission/authority to offer any posts/promotion - she was disciplined. I think the central question is did the line manager who promised you the pay rise etc have the authority to do that - did he have the authority to make a verbal agreement/contract with you?
I’m an employment solicitor and will be able to help, but will need to see if I’m conflicted. Drop me a PM and I’ll see what I can do. Cheers
Thank you for all the advice. To be honest the pay rise is the least of my worries and in the current climate having a job and being able to pay the bills is a luxury some don't have. My main thing is I don't want to worry about going to work and being worried about being targeted or being disciplined for something I haven't done.
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but write everything down, as it happens, including dates and times. Then should you have to refere to incidents in the future, you'll have all the info you need (and in my experience, the other side won't).
In my experience it is rare you get a full picture in the first attempt, so rather than give him HR advice, I was recommending they used the resources available to him, who will discuss it in detail and advise correctly if he has something to be worried about or if it is just procedure(why I said on face value). Like you have said I would have raised if it concerned me and you would think the company would welcome the conversation too.
Some unions have a "cooling off" period - where they won't engage in a dispute until you've been a member for a period of time. Depending on the timing it might be too late for union involvement.
This is only fair when you think about it, or nobody would bother paying monthly fees like I do. I think of it in a similar way to an insurance policy in that I hopefully won't need it but will be relieved if something happens and it is there. I know money is tight but it is worth having.
It's more of a case. That if the prospective new member has a dispute/disciplinary pending they wouldn't assist. (But I have known 1 or 2 slip through the net.) If not. covered from day one.
Usually 3-6 months for disciplinary issues and certainly if your union thinks they would need to engage Thompsons but I’ve never really stuck to that as a rep and tend to help people straight away. I’m sure it’ll bite me one day though.
Update, walked into work total turn around apologised to about all the stress etc not gunna complain but on the other hand still pretty annoyed to be put through it but fingers crossed things are sorted, cheers everyone for the advice
I totally get that stance JV. I used to do the same. But as I got older I realised that that, was a disservice to the members. And i would point it out in for example in team meetings or with a new prospective member individually. I became hardened to the fact someone would approach me for advice after on many occasion them stating to their colleagues and to myself to my face on occasion. "I don't see the need to join one" well if that's the case and pardon my french. "**** em." And their colleagues in the union weren't shy in coming forward on the issue. I always said to em I'm not yer mother. Join or don't come running when a problem arises. Also I'd let em negotiate their own pay rises. An extra 1% on a pay deal fought by the union members would pay their dues near enough. Getting more riled as I think about it. Tell em where to go mate and look after those that pay their way.
Can totally see that point and to an extent agree with it. Just feel that people are so brow beaten that they can’t see the bigger picture. What I would say is that everyone I have given early help to has stated a member if they are still employed.
Fortunate that in my dept.(bear in mind I'm now retired but keep in touch re T's n C's as there are that many different ones depending when folk joined the company. Eg we were outsourced 1999 then insourced back in house 2010 and got protected rights. We in engineering even got better terms for new starters after 2010 in comparison to other depts. That didn't get outsourced.) 90% + are members. And probably 10yrs ago 100%. New starters and the odd couple been there a while in other depts. Not prepared to join. And honestly they'd be the ones crying wolf in general and s41t scared at the prospect of having to go in front of management if on an investigation. The company btw. YW. Attempted to change all Ts n Cs to the lowest terms. As in their words. " To try and bring a uniformity instead of several different contracts because it is an administrative nightmare". They created it, so **** em. Unless they raise all contracts to the highest terms. Then we were prepared to talk.
