|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 19:59:56 GMT
This one seems to have slipped quietly through the scrutiny of the 'tube watchers'....
For the last couple of evenings delays have been advised because of - quote - 'CIRCLE LINE: Minor delays are occurring due to non-availability of staff' (that is this evening's message - I believe last night there were more significant delays being advertised).
I have it on good authority that this is due to what amounts to wild cat strikes by Edgware Road drivers. The story goes that a driver currently off sick was contacted to have an interview with a manager about his sickness - this was agreed providing that a) a union rep was present and b) the interview was at a 'neutral location'.
All was arranged; but when the manager submitted his expenses claim it seems that this was from a 'hostelry' and included was the cost of alcoholic drinks! As a result all three attendees have now been 'stood down' pending disciplinary action as they have been deemed by their employing manager to have been drinking on duty.
Although the initial entertainment may have been a little ill advised on the part of the manager who arranged it, the action of his manager is more than a little over-zealous in the opinion of a number of people I've spoke to about this - of the same grade as he who has invoked the suspension I hasten to add!
A rare example of staff and managers in accord.
I suspect that someone will have a 'quiet word' with the employing manager concerned and the matter will quietly slip away.
The general feeling I've heard is that it should never have been dealt with so heavy handedly but more as an informal issue. A lesson for would be managers perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Jan 4, 2007 20:29:57 GMT
I'd hazard a guess that someone been making assumptions and jumping to conclusions as well. Just because one has been in a pub or other venue selling refreshments, it doesn't automatically follow that alcohol has been consumed.
Trying to suggest that an employee on official sick leave is suddenly on duty because he's meeting a manager to discuss progress is stretching things I'd have thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2007 20:30:44 GMT
I also heard a similar story from a H&C driver today, but he said the driver concerned has now been reinstated. And that the manager concerned was considered a good one by most of the drivers, so many drivers would probably still walk out if the manager wasn't also reinstated.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 4, 2007 20:48:23 GMT
Dave,
You have a pm
TP
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jan 4, 2007 20:50:21 GMT
I have had business meetings for over 30 years in hostelries of various types, including one major one about my promotion with my senior partner. The boss paid in that case and set it against expenses. All the others I paid if it was my invitation, and I claimed the costs back. Meetings these days are frequently held in hotels as "neutral locations" and because they have facilities. Refreshment in the meeting is polite and apposite. I therefore find the suggestion that suspensions awaiting disciplinary action were handed out absolutely ridiculous. If there was any problem with alcohol being consumed, and who knows if it was non-alcoholic beverages anyway, surely the expenses claim should be refused and the matter let lie. At least the manager seems to be dealing with the matter sensitively: inthe local paper the other day it was mentioned that a probationary post office worker who had a stroke whilst doing deliveries was being sacked whilst still off sick! The paper carried the story and the PO have agreed to review the situation but their previous attitude was that his employment was terminated because he was unable to finish his probationary period. As if the poor man and his wife had enough to worry about, they then had to face the loss of his job and the strees and strain of an application to an industrial tribunal. Talk about insensitivity!
Having said that, my daughter who works for Tescos has a soft tissue ankle injury which has taken her out of work from Tuesday until next Monday. When she rang in the duty manager demanded a sick note even though she had been to the local NHS walk-in centre, or rather hopped into the walk-in centre! We had to see our GP and ask for a sick note, even though it is self-certification still, as the the store have had so many "sick" people extending their holiday that they refused to believe anyone and are insisting on interviewing each staff member when they return to work to ensure that their illness was genuine. Regrettably some employees abuse the system and then queer the pitch for genuinely ill colleagues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2007 20:50:55 GMT
I made reference to this in a [url=http://centraluser.blogspot.com/2007/01/great-portland-street-customer_04.html[/url]elsewhere this morning. I thought it made quite a nice change that the news hadn't made it into the public domain. Based on the limited information to hand (thanks DD), the original decision may have been OTT. For once though, perhaps a bit of common sense (and good management) can resolve the problem without the Evening Standard going off on one.
My original post (as a passenger) was based on supposition and hearsay and whilst not in full command of the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 21:03:53 GMT
I'd hazard a guess that someone been making assumptions and jumping to conclusions as well. Just because one has been in a pub or other venue selling refreshments, it doesn't automatically follow that alcohol has been consumed. Trying to suggest that an employee on official sick leave is suddenly on duty because he's meeting a manager to discuss progress is stretching things I'd have thought. I agree to all you say, but *apparently* the receipt produced was for a 'tab' and - as I'm sure you well know - held fully detailed all that had been consumed. A bit hard to wriggle away from! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2007 21:05:00 GMT
What about the staff that are striking? Any trouble in store for them?
Sam
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 21:06:12 GMT
TP - Don't seem to have received the PM - try me again, or by email. DD |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 21:14:17 GMT
Trying to reply to several here.... Sam - yes, potentially there could be (and for their unions too I think, though no expert on Trade Union Law. I suspect this action falls into the category of 'wildcat'. ADW - I hope that's the case and for the manager too; it seems to me he's well regarded and (though I know this is not a position often taken  ) should be supported. Oracle - over the years (and before my involvement with LU) business meetings - right up to Director level! - have been conducted over 'lunch' and 'dinner' and were often a good place to discuss very weighty issues. But LU has a strict no alcolhol policy (we can expand this elsewhere if appropriate) so at face value here was a breach. Re the postman I saw that item in the paper today - badly handled IMHO! Your daughter's case is not unusal - many employers ask for private certificates this time of year; to be truthful I suppose they have a case!! |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Jan 4, 2007 21:16:45 GMT
the receipt produced was for a 'tab'...... Ah, I see. Yes that does put a different slant on it and the manager should have used his loaf a bit more and not given his boss the opportunity. If others of similar grade to the guy who's imposing penalties are saying it was OTT then who are we to argue? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 21:19:58 GMT
the receipt produced was for a 'tab'...... If others of similar grade to the guy who's imposing penalties are saying it was OTT then who are we to argue? ;D Indeed so - it seems he's an 'acting' and 'trying to impress'....  |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jan 4, 2007 21:44:43 GMT
DD, private certs are £10 now...a big dent at £6.05/hour.
I had an 11-employee firm with multi-hundreds of thousands in turnover. I knew only too well who was genuinely ill and who was still recovering from the grape and grain the night before. But you had to accept it.
All I can add is that if the chap ran a tab, as I did, he should have used his noggin* and dug into his own pocket. Avoid being hanged by your own petard.
*brain
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 22:13:59 GMT
DD, private certs are £10 now...a big dent at £6.05/hour. I had an 11-employee firm with multi-hundreds of thousands in turnover. I knew only too well who was genuinely ill and who was still recovering from the grape and grain the night before. But you had to accept it. All I can add is that if the chap ran a tab, as I did, he should have used his noggin* and dug into his own pocket. Avoid being hanged by your own petard. *brain I totally agree with you on all of this - and I guess that the £10 -v- £6.05 calculation is a deliberate act on the part of the employer - not to mention actually having to get the doc's appt. etc! Oh yes, the 'recalcitrant attendees' isn't rocket science; I too had such individuals - you knew who wouldn't be in following an England game (or some such!). Yes, the duty manager should have 'forgotten' to get a receipt and maybe pleaded for a reasonable reimbursement from his boss. If he hadn't coughed up, lesson learnt for the next occasion perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Jan 4, 2007 22:36:50 GMT
Train and Bus Drivers, and others involved in Public Transport safety are under intense public scrutiny and a complete ban on intoxicating and other mind affecting substances are completely ligitimate and neccesary.
This 'exercise' appears to have got out of hand and would I am sure be handled differently in the future but Licenced Premises are not, in my opinion,suitable for any form of Disiplinary Proceedings ' in a neutral location'.
Maybe I am a 'Wowser' but why not over a cup of coffee in MacDonalds ?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jan 4, 2007 22:45:16 GMT
I think that discussing this situation without the full facts is ill advised, particularly as most of the information on this subject is based on hear say and rumour. I trained both the manager who is involved and the 'acting' manager who is dealing with the situation so know them both very well. Despite opinions to the contrary the vast majority of drivers and management actually get on very well at Edgware Road, I know this because amongst other roles I was both a driver and a manager there over a 15 year period.
I think it best if we don't add fuel to the fire here and just allow this situation to run it's course. We all know that staff and managers alike drop into this forum and I don't doubt the odd 'hack' from the press too.
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 23:09:12 GMT
I'm inclined to agree with PJRB on this; my intention was to try to put some facts to rumours I suspect were probably about to be aired.
The benefit of hindsight suggests I perhaps should have kept quiet....
But I don't want to prejudice anyone's position over this, so I'm locking the thread. Any queries please PM me - don't post new threads - they'll be deleted.
DD
|
|
) should be supported.
