HR

[Deathbychocolate22]

Has anyone raised a grievance against HR? What was the outcome?

HR has continually moved me to unsuitable roles when managers left. Extremely high staff turnover.

Procedures do not work and there is no accountability. Clueless. Horrific working environment.

Are you sure the grievance should be against HR? The reason I ask is that generally HR are there in a consultative capacity not as decision makers. They are there to advise the business leaders on how to meet Human Resource legal requirements and not breach any employment laws but the decisions on company structure and where to allocate resource usually sit with leadership.

So wouldn't your grievance be against the managers/directors who are moving you?

Has your job role/contract actually been changed with these moves? If so were you notified in advance and given the opportunity to consult with them on the changes and any negative impacts you could see?

What you consider to be unsuitable roles and what the law considers to be unsuitable are unlikely to be the same thing, and HR will be advising the employer on what the law says.

If there is an extermeley high turnover, then why are you still there? Genuine question.

I think you really need to explain exactly what you are complaining about, because whilst HR are there to look after the employers interests, not yours, as a previous poster has said, they are not likely to have done anything other than ensure the law is followed. The decisions would fall with higher managers and, ultimately, with the employer.

Managers have left company. It is HR who have moved me. I was Tuped there and never given a job spec for any of the roles despite asking.

High long term sick leave within the company. Including HR. Dealt with multiple people within HR who did nothing and left

Laws are breached and there are multiple fines

You aren't answering the questions. Vague statements and allegations don't enable anyone to advise you. Managers leaving and high turnover are not unlawful acts. Not giving you a job spec is not an unlawful act. Not getting back to you is not an unlawful act. Long term sick leave of others is not an unlawful act. Vague references to "laws being breached and multiple fines" doesn't tell us anything.

It sounds bloody awaful yes, but the fact remains (a) why are you still there if everyone else is leaving and (b) what do you think they have actually done to you that is unlawful ?

Move me to jobs that do not match my skills. They keep changing tasks. Huge volume of menial tasks on top of other tasks. Refused to give me a trial period for any of the jobs.

I have over 10 years continuous service in company. I am now near retirement with a very long notice.

They give me the tasks because there is a high level of incompetency with other workers and they are trying to shift blame.

Not left due to long-term service and age.

The stress of the situation is making me ill.

HR made the decisions and those individuals are now off sick or have left. Remaining HR giving me HR tasks on top of everything else.

I'm sorry, and I am sure that the situation you are in is making it hard for you to think straight. I've seen people in that situation. But nothing you are describing is unlawful. They don't have to give you jobs that match your skills. They have to give you jobs that you can do. And you are not suggesting that you can't do them, in fact to the contrary it seems you are saying that you are getting the work because others are not competant to do the work, which suggests you are! You aren't entitled to a trial period unless you are being made redundant, and there is no suggestion that you are being made redundant. And please, please be cautious about decsribing work as "menial" - that sounds like arrogance, even if that isn't what you mean.

Let's try getting at this another way. You have a long notice period - does that mean you are quite senior? The two would ususally go hand in hand. Can you not go off sick if it is making you ill and then retire? Can you ask to retire early?

If that isn't possible then you need to try to explain what they are doing that isn't lawful. I'm really sorry but everything you are describing is not showing anything unlawful. Your managers have left, and you cannot be left without a manager, so you are being moved to other work. That may not be the work you want to do, but if it is deemed to be at the same grade and on the same terms, and your role is not at risk, then they aren't obviously changing anything fundamental. They perhaps ought to be discussing this with you, but I'm finding it hard to pin down exactly what they are doing wrong from what you are saying. By wrong I mean something that the law says they can't do.

If you can't do that then all you have for a grievance is that you don't like your job / managers / HR - and in all honesty they are going to throw that back at you and say it's tough luck.

This is a bit of a reach, because nothing you've said suggests this is the case. But would this be a public sector TUPE? With older workers the public sector is often very reluctant to let people go even when they don't really have a role for them any more because of the adverse impact on pension etc. It can actually cost more for the employer to let them go, but at the same time reduce the pension the individual gets.

I wish I could come up with something better here, but I am not seeing anything that is going to substantiate a grievance other than the fact that you aren't happy. And that won't do. I won't give up trying if you don't - but you need to give us something that is unlawful or meaningful that can frame a strategy.

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word menial. My job now includes cleaning as an extra task which isn't something linked to experience or the rest of the role.

No payrise either. Private sector. I dont want to out myself but the company is imploding.

Are you saying they can continue to dump tasks on me no matter what and I have no recourse.

I am hanging in but have experienced mental health issues for the first time in my life in this company. I have had private counselling and Dr has increased my medication to help me.

They are treating me unfairly compared to others but I realise that doesn't hold any weight.

I know you didn't mean it, but you need to be cautious about how it comes across to others. Go into HR with the same words and they'll focus on that.

Unfortunately yes, unless you can demonstrate something unlawful, there is no legal definition of how much work they can give you. In many ways the law assumes that employers don't overload staff or do really unreasonable things. I know that isn't true, but the problem is that you have to show that what they are doing is in some way not acceptable in law. Put it this way. If you can't convince someone here that there's an unfair situation, how would you prove it to HR or to a court?

So I'm assuming you can't afford to take early retirement or go sick? Honestly, it sounds like they either don't have a clue what to do with you as you are surplus to requirement, or they are trying to force you out. Neither of which suggests anything will change. But if you can afford it my advice would be to go off sick. At least to give yourself some breathing space. And whilst it isn't proof of anything in itself, it fits give some possible leverage if your doctor will advise that is is work related sickness.

N