to have given my husband this advice about work

[fernie3]

I wrote a huge long post yesterday in employment issues about this but basically my husband has had three episodes of sickness in the last year which have been a few weeks each in length but each time he has been signed off with a doctors note from the start and has had no other problems in between. He had a new boss after christmas and has had so many problems including changes in his work which are totally unreasonable, comments about him and his sickness and a verbal warning about not completing work which was impossible to complete, it is pretty clear from what he has said that his boss is trying to find a reason to sack him or get him to quit.

One of his periods of sickness was due to depresion and although he has been really good lately he has started to get very upset about whats going on and to me it just sounds like grown up bullying. Last night he was very upset and asking me what to do all the time so I just said to skip over his boss and go to the next boss up (who he has never had any problems with) and talk to her about it. He has said he will do that today, I think he is going to find it very dificult because of how he is feeling a the moment but I didnt see any other option. If he i sacked then it will affect his ability to get a new job if he quits we will have no money and god know how long it will take him to find another job and as far as i am aware if he quits we wont even be able to claim benefits.

Anyway I am really worried now I have NEVER worked in an office and have very little personal experience of this sort of workplae I am now thinking I have told him something which might make it worse and he may commit some kind of horrible office error. Is is unreasonable to skip over your bos if it is your boss causing the problems? should I have kept my mouth shut and let him work it out?

normally this wouldnt be a good idea because it would really annoy the immediate boss BUT from what you say, the immediate boss has got it in for your DH anyway so probably can't make it any worse.....

i think as long as he is going to her for advice, and not telling tales then it isnt wrong as such.

hope he gets on okay

I think it sounds good advice tbh.

To sack him they would have to give him 2 written warnings on top of the verbal warning so unlikely to happen immediately (unless he also does something that is classed as gross misconduct but that would be something like theft/ streaking through the office etc). However, it may be that they have decided to apply a bit of pressure and see what happens ("managing out" in HR speak)

To be fair, I think your suggestion is a sensible one in the circumstances but it might go either way. It depends on the relationship between big boss and immediate boss. Instructions to apply a bit of pressure may have come from higher up the food chain, or indeed from within Dh's own team (never underestimate the devious ways of the put upon colleague). Alternativelyt big boss may be unaware of situation and be supportive.

I know you cant sack people for legitimate sickness but if your husband has had 3 x 3 weeks off (my estimate of "a few") he was off for nearly 20% of last year. I have known instances where it has been decided to try to manage out in those circumstances especially if the reasons are seen as recurring.

I am not saying this is right so dont flame me- I'm just giving you my real life perspective as a veteran of extremem office politics

Articfox I understand about the sickness especially as it was for three unrelated things. He had one week of in March last year for a hernia operation, the around 5-6 weeks off (although 2 of these he booked as annual leave so 4 weeks off sick) with depression and then by december he had an infection which affected his liver and made him go bright yellow and throw up for two weeks. The poor man has really had a bad year! I DO understand it is irritating for his work and I think you are right with whats going on.

Hopefully I am wrong and big boss will kick evil boss into touch

TBH, as the three incidents were unrelated I'm more positive than if he'd had 9 weeks off with depression, as he's not likely to keep getting hernias/ liver infections.

Hope it works out.

No,, I think it's fine in this case as this isn't something that can be resolved by going to his boss.

Depression can be classed as a disability so "his boss is trying to find a reason to sack him or get him to quit. " is straying into discrimination. You'll need advice from someone better than me but I'd get him to write down as much detail as he can remember of what's been going on and keep a log from now on.

Also, hope this doesn't come out the wrong way, but they may think his liver infection and his depression are drink related - not saying I do, just wondering if they think that.

stealthpolar bear I didnt think of that! neither of us drink AT ALL ( both had alcoholic parents and decided as teenagers not to which was one of the reasons we got together - only 17 year olds out and not drinking!)but obviously his work would not know this so perhaps that it something they are worried about.Not sure how he can prove this to them though!

Has he had any sort of capability interview / return to work? He may want to ask to be assessed by occupational health people to satisfy his employers he is fit to work. Obviously don't do this unless they are also being reasonable iyswim.

he hasnt had any sort of interview or anything about being off , he just went back one monday and carried on as normal. They didnt mention it from what he says just ignored the fact he had been off at all - well apart from complaining about the fact he hadnt been answering emails while in hospital lol.

Ok I'm going to give a bosses perspective here and as someone who has some experience of this type of issue as a second line manager.

You don't give a lot of detail about the unreasonable change of work practices, discussions about his illnesses or the impossible work activity, so it is difficult to assess how each of these issues is broached. As a manager I know that if someone is sensitive about their 'issues' (and I'll call them this for the sake of conciseness) they can take any discussion about them a bit the wrong way.

Some managers are better at handling stuff than others - for some it is trial and error.

1)I went into my current job and assumed because I was a senior manager I could tell someone to do their job a slightly different way and they would do it, but no - I had to have three or four planning meetings for the change and allow a lead in period for the change to take effect.

2. One of my staff has a member of staff that has a sickness record similar to your husband, but if you mention it to her she will fly off the handle - 'how dare you, I had GP notes, I'm being victimised, I can't help it' - everyone knows there are underlying issues but she refuses point blank to acknowledge to anyone that this is the case and she feels like she's being bullied.

3. What your husband thinks is an impossible piece of work maybe something that his manager thinks he is perfectly capable of doing and cannot understand why it hasn't been done. I can't believe that before picking up a verbal warning there hasn't been an opportunity for him to put his side of the story across or that HR weren't involved - if it had been totally unreasonable wouldn't they have had a veto? Some of my staff declare things to be 'impossible' when really they are just tough and require a workaround rather than following a defined process - did he ask for any help?

I think it would be telling to find out how other members of staff are treated to identify if it seems particularly unfair. But from experience I can tell you that sometimes one member of staff causes concern and they are unduly focussed on as an attempt to resolve whatever issues there are - not everyone is singled out in the same way because they work is ok. But do you see how sometimes a manager's legitimate actions are taken out of context?

Like I said, sometimes it is a learning curve for the managers as well. I work with a bunch of people who are quite assertive and know their rights. Perhaps your husband should request some time with this manager to try and thrash out the issues in a non-confrontational way - I take my staff for a coffee at a coffee shop to ensure calm discussion. Make sure he has a plan of what he wants to say but to not go into it with a 'victim mentality' that he is being bullied, as this is likely to put the manager's back up. He needs to ask what is expected of him, what he feels his capabilities are, to explain about the sickness absences and to discuss if there are any development opportunities he can take up to improve his performance.

Once an employee has been proactive like this they can be seen to be trying to resolve matters and, to be blunt, it makes them quite difficult to sack - in the worst case scenario an employment tribunal would look favourably upon his attempts to build bridges. It can't hurt anyway, and the manager might be relieved that s/he can use some leadership skills instead of pure managerial tools.

CUNextTuesday thanks for your perspective. He has had a few meeting with his manager although i have no idea what went on other than what my husband told me.

The main changes in work has been the workload. With the old manager he was getting around 60-100 emails a day which are requests for work, he has 48 hours to do a job before it becomes overdue, this many he was managing. He is a web developer and so these are thing like uploading pictures, planning new sites and fixing errors. He is now getting as many as 300 (many from his boss) he just cannot complete 300 jobs in 48 hours there just isnt enough time. I know he is telling the truth about this because he has shown me the list of jobs he has its huge!

The verbal warning was for not completing his work within the time he is given.

I am not sure of how the other people in his job are treated, I know one has lost his job since christmas but dont know the circumstances so this might be a different story.

Your husband needs to join a union, imo. If he's not in one. He can get valuable advice and help but it's important to join now before this becomes a more formal 'issue' if indeed it does become one.

I have read CUNExtTues' response and I wholly agree with it.

Confronting the line manager first is generally the accepted way of dealing with things in an office. If he goes straight to the person above him the question could end up being "are you bringing a grievance"? when really all he wants to try and do is resolve the issue. If he is unsatisfied with the outcome of this meeting then he should go to the person above him.

If it's a workload issue, your husband might be advised to keep a log/timesheet of how long each job is taking so it can be presented if there is any 'confrontation'. From a remote position it does seem like an unreasonable stance on behalf of the manager, but I maintain that an honest and low-charged meeting with coffee is the way forward. It might be the manager is trying to impress his/her boss, or stamping his/her mark on the role. The key to resolving it is to bring evidence and a balanced viewpoint to the situation so it doesn't just seem like a whinge about the amount of work there is. Perhaps an honest assessment of how much of the work can practically be done in a week, and back that up with a 'trial week' which sets the benchmark? The manager then is in an awkward position if they continue to insist on more, and I would suggest if all the above is in place that a grievance could legitimetely be taken.