To complain to HR… about HR?

[ApricotFlan]

Sorry, this might be a bit of a long one!

For a while now, the buzz at work has been that my head of department, Angela, was on borrowed time. Yesterday it was confirmed the rumours were true. Angela had been into her boss’s office and then went out seemingly for lunch, but never came back. Our team was then called into the boardroom and told that Angela had been made redundant, effective immediately.

Because there had already been gossip, Angela’s boss - now OUR boss until further notice - decided it was better that any speculation happened away from the office. He gave my line manager his corporate card and told him to take us all to the pub, so that any discussions would happen there.

This morning I and two of my colleagues arrived at around 9.15. We have a flexible start and end time, with the option to do anything from 8 - 4 to 10 - 6, and the rest of the team had arrived early. My colleague Louise told me that the Head of UK HR had pulled them all in and given them a dressing down for going to the pub, saying it looked like we were “celebrating”, and that Angela has most definitely NOT been made redundant and was in a process. Louise and the others had naturally told her that we’d simply done as we’d been told, and that it was our boss who’d said Angela had been made redundant. When Louise asked why my colleagues and I weren’t being included in the meeting, Head of HR had admitted she’d forgotten about us 🙄

Anyway, Head of HR appears and asks me and my two colleagues to come to the boardroom. I’m expecting an apology for forgetting us and a reiteration of the redundancy process, seeing as she now knows a) we were following orders and b) that it was our boss who’d told us about the redundancy.

No. We got the exact same spiel about how bad it looked that we’d gone to the pub, couldn’t we see that it looked like we were celebrating - even a mawkish “Think how poor Angela would feel!” We were told again that she had absolutely NOT been made redundant and was in a process.

I said, “Sorry, I’m confused - Louise said she explained we were TOLD to go to the pub, and that Angela had been made redundant.” Head of HR got flustered saying “Well yes; she did, she did.” I then asked why we were there if she knew all this. She got huffy and said again that the point was that Angela had NOT been made redundant and that this should not be said in the office. I repeated that no one had said this other than management.

Later on in the day, Head of HR had said to Louise, “I didn’t offend you all earlier, did I?” Louise, to her credit, had said that yes, frankly she did, and that the issue had actually been with our boss.

I am torn on what to do. If any other manager had treated me like this and been so inept, I would be straight on to HR. But it IS HR who have made the almighty fuck-up. I cannot comprehend how the supposed head of the UK function would a) haul the team in without even speaking to their boss, b) forget three members of said team even exist and c) STILL give the team members they forgot the original lecture, when their mistake had already been corrected! The incompetence is breathtaking.

Despite it being the UK Head of HR at fault, I do have options. One would be to complain to my boss and get him to take it up with them. The other is to go to the Global Head of HR. It’s a big move, but I just cannot fathom how this all went so badly wrong, and why I’m being hauled in to answer for the mistakes of management . Should I take this further?

I cannot comprehend how the supposed head of the UK function would a) haul the team in without even speaking to their boss, b) forget three members of said team even exist and c) STILL give the team members they forgot the original lecture, when their mistake had already been corrected! The incompetence is breathtaking.

I’ll humour you.

Someone Angela is friendly with, informed her that you all went to the pub to discuss her redundancy. Angela, not knowing who to trust, complained directly to HR about bullying & a breach of confidentiality.

Head of HR themselves took the investigation on as it involved senior members of staff. They therefore didn’t need to get “your boss”’s version of events first before discussing it with the team directly. The boss might be the subject of the complaint, given Angela could infer that someone high up made the juniors aware.

HR did not forget 3 members of the team - you arrived after 9am, HR just discussed with the people who were on site first. They spoke to the people who arrived later, when you had actually arrived.

They held the same conversation with you, so they could rightly tick off that everyone was spoken to, a version of events was obtained from each witness and therefore they were being thorough. Ultimately it’s still a problem for the business if Angela has complained. Due diligence needs to be carried out regardless of you feeling offended.

This sounds like something from one of the dysfunctional organisations I used to work for. The Head of HR sounds foolish and the fact she subsequently approached Louise to ask if she (Head of HR) had offended you all reveals she knows she hasn’t handled the situation well.

I’d complain.

I agree the organisation is dysfunctional, but I can’t agree with the rest of your post.

I’ll tell you what textbook toxic play the Head of HR can do:

She will write her own notes to say “Louise was difficult, argumentative, not engaging” etc when interviewed. She “later saw Louise give her a dirty look so she asked Louise if she offended her, and Louise responded in a loud/rude manner referring to the interview”. Head of HR would then fire off emails to her HR mates “seeking advice” (which is just a way for head of HR to create a contemporaneous paper trail in their favour should this escalate).

Essentially head of HR would have already covered herself should Louise or anyone complain about her approach. Especially as this isn’t even a major F up on her behalf really, the people going to the pub to discuss a colleague leaving the business on company money, is a bigger fire to fight. Especially if Angela has complained about OP’s team’s actions. No one denied going to the pub to discuss Angela, they admitted to it. It’s not a good look should Angela take this to an employment tribunal for example. Whereas OP or Louise’s complaint has ZERO traction at an employment tribunal.

What do you hope to achieve with your complaint?

This sounds like a botched box ticking exercise but not sure what you'd achieve by complaining unless you all just want an apology so if that's all you want then make that clear in your complaint.

However it will be discussed at board level and that could put a target on your back as a troublemaker so if you think it is worth it, crack on.

@657904I it doesn’t matter whether Louise’s complaint or the OP’s complaint would have traction at an ET. In my experience most grievances don’t.

I think you’re crediting this Head of HR with too much intelligence. If she were the sort to go about creating contemporaneous paper trails and all of the other textbook toxic play as you described, she wouldn’t have approached Louise and asked had she caused offence to those she had spoken to earlier. She’s drawn attention to the fact her behaviour/the way she spoke wasn’t beyond reproach and that there’s some recognition of that on her part.

It sounds like this Head of HR has taken it upon herself to give a bit of a dressing down to the OP and her colleagues. That is overstepping her remit. Anyone working in HR worth their salt knows that the sort of conversations she has had are conducted by the appropriate manager. Head of HR has acted as though she were the OP’s line manager or their line manager’s manager in admonishing the OP/members of the OP’s team.

I agree that the other issues (staff being told to go to the pub.discussions about the circumstances of Angela’s departure etc) should be addressed. However, the way the Head of HR has gone about things is a separate matter.

Why would you complain and give the company even more issues to deal with than they already have?
Of course you can reflect and see that LM and HR could have dealt with this better. You could also reflect that LM shouldn't have had to worry about you and team gossiping on site. It's obviosuly not ok for head of dept to find out that you all went for deinks on the company after she left.
You could have declined offer of pub and stayed and worked for your wages. You could just get on with your job today, and even ask your LM if there's anything you can do to help under the circumstances? Why choose to complain and take up more resources rather than being part of the solutions? Where do you want to be in the future with this company?

Your new boss is the problem, having done two unprofessional things. It's useful to bear in mind that HR had to undo those two things. The bit about your boss is being swept under the rug so the company isn't liable. HR are frantically scurrying around to clean up that mess so they can say "We spoke to everyone involved in the drinks to clarify it was inappropriate and that Angela was not made redundant." This is HR doing their job, and it's pointless for you to complain about that. They will not appreciate you noting the new boss behaviour on an official written record, and that pointlessly creates issues for you. Let it go.

@Sladuf1 HR are taught to think about risk of employment tribunals. Especially the head of HR herself - she would deal with the most serious issues. If a grievance has no tribunal potential, it will be deemed as minor/no risk.

She therefore doesn’t need to be intelligent to explain her way out of a complaint here. There’s no personal risk to her as the complaint is minor, and can easily be spun as vexatious with a robust defence. Beyond that, HR staff are not intelligent. They’re not legal professionals nor do they require specific education or qualifications. Hence why they can take this approach.

There is risk to the company if Angela (who was the head of department presumably on a high salary), was made redundant on shaky grounds. If she put in a grievance about this & the fact that her direct reports were made aware & directed to discuss her in the pub, on the company card…it would be considered a high risk complaint with attached legal liability. How the company responds will be under a magnifying glass.

What an odd situation. Someone’s been made ‘redundant’ so let’s go to the pub to talk about her.

What a load of crap. For any HR job in the UK you have to have a degree and accreditation with CIPD!

you think a company will hire someone for HR off the street with no training!?

@657904I “HR staff are not intelligent.” That’s a broad brushed statement, don’t you think? I also have to beg to differ with you regarding your point about lack of specific qualifications, particularly for HR jobs from adviser level and upwards. Very rare to find CIPD qualifications are not required and for Head of HR level possibly chartered CIPD membership in addition to Level 7 qualifications.

Thinking about issues in terms of weighing up the risk of employment tribunals is a fraction of the work involved with employee relations issues. If the OP were to complain, the relevant process still has to be followed. It may well be the sort of thing that is appropriate to be looked at informally but there would still be a process for that.

I understand that your manager told you to go to the pub but did no one think that it was an inappropriate reaction and speak up?

as my mum would often say if your manager told you to play in traffic would you do it?

I agree. The entire thing sounds unprofessional from start to finish. Given that it appears that neither the managers nor HR in this global company have a clue how to act professionally - and tbh I also would not have gone down the pub on a company credit card, told to or not - I would suggest that you keep your head down and move on. Because when and if there is any fall out from "all her colleagues going down the pub to gossip" you can guarantee that your boss and HR will be looking for some scapegoats.

It would be a sackable offence in lots of workplaces, given the use of the company credit card.

It really wouldn’t. The cardholder is a senior figure within the business and he authorised it. Of course if someone had grabbed the card off the desk without his permission it would be a sackable offence, or if he’d been fiddling his expenses, but neither of those are what happened here. And it’s ridiculous that suggest that going to the pub is in itself an offence.

I don’t understand the point of questions like this. You know nobody said this.

I will ensure I ask them to provide me with a hair shirt too. Or perhaps I should provide it myself to avoid “taking up resources”.

No.,you as employees are unlikely to get in trouble but business lunches are meant to be used for business interests. You all going down to bitch about Angela does not enhance the business’s interests. So yes your boss could be sacked A) for abuse of the company CC and B) for actively telling staff confidential information and encouraging them to go out into a public space to discuss-further breaking confidentially.

It would in most professional companies and it's also in the terms and conditions of almost ever credit card company that only the authorised card holder should use the card.

Exactly, you are all responsible for your own actions of going to the pub and making someone’s redundancy news into a celebration. The conversation from HR needed to happen for everyone involved because you didn’t think for yourselves.

It’s almost certainly against the regs for use of the corporate card to allow anyone else to use it on his behalf. He’ll have signed a document with the card providers. I know almost everyone does it, but if HR are looking for reasons to discipline him…

This is one of the weirder posts I've seen on here. Where do you work? What decade are you working in?!

I'd get on with my work and my life. You all sound like teenagers.

If a conversation was to be had, it was to be had with our senior manager. To shift the blame is just punching down - and to go into the conversation having clearly not spoken to him first was negligent.

So is Angela on 'gardening leave', pending a pay-off? I assume that she hasn't actually been made redundant or they wouldn't be able to fill her post.

It does all sound quite unprofessional and I'm surprised at Angela's manager giving junior staff a company credit card to go to the pub and gossip about Angela's dismissal. Normally, staff are instructed not to speculate but it seems to have been encouraged in this case.

Was Angela a good boss or are you all pleased that she has gone?

What decade are you working in?!

What is this supposed to mean?

Was Angela a good boss or are you all pleased that she has gone?

Appalling. The “redundancy” is 100% an excuse.