Page 4 | I’m Incompetent Apparently!

Selfishlazyme · 2023-10-16T21:46:12+00:00

Last week I came across an email all about me (legit came across, no sneaky snooping). It was from a Manager in my team (Not my Line Manager), to Upper Management listing all my apparent failings, and the impact it was having on her (already failing) service. Nobody has ever brought these allegations of incompetency to my attention. I work hard for her dept. Im obviously angry, but more so deeply hurt by this. I feel I’ve not been given any opportunity to defend myself, and I’m so embarrassed that UM will now believe this of me, plus any other colleagues who may have read it. Any advice before I curl up and die of shame ?

ouiouiouioui · 17/10/2023 21:42

Webex · 17/10/2023 16:48

What is your grievance? That the email shouldn't have been written or that it shouldn't have been made available to you? What is the outcome you're seeking?

The content

Ollifer · 18/10/2023 07:58

workisbad · 17/10/2023 21:14

It does read as snooping - I’m not surprised posters are concerned about comeback.

In what circumstance does a junior member of staff require full access to the HR meetings their manager’s manager is invited to? I doubt the spirit of OP being given calendar access of her big boss is to monitor absolutely all content including private items. Ultimately there’s 2 tiers of management between them and presumably difference in job duties and salary - there will be a line somewhere

Show quote history

Yes this - I've had access to senior calendars in many of my jobs but snooping into appointments and opening emails and attachments that I don't need to would be considered misconduct, and I'd expect to be questioned about why I was doing it.

Cola2023 · 18/10/2023 09:49

Selfishlazyme · 17/10/2023 15:32

I’ve continued working and haven’t contacted HR or put a SARS in.
Ive contacted my union who advised me to submit a formal grievance with evidence disproving each point she has made.

I think you'll be terminated or end up having to leave.

Webex · 18/10/2023 09:58

What is your grievance? That the email shouldn't have been written or that it shouldn't have been made available to you? What is the outcome you're seeking?

The content

I'm not sure if you're the OP with a name change fail or guessing. I suppose "the content" is what I meant by the grievance being that the email shouldn't have been written.

I would consider this quite a tricky grievance to get to stick unless the criticism was offensive or discriminatory. It's not unlawful for managers to discuss staff performance issues by email.

smilesmilee · 18/10/2023 10:54

Webex · 18/10/2023 09:58

What is your grievance? That the email shouldn't have been written or that it shouldn't have been made available to you? What is the outcome you're seeking?

The content

I'm not sure if you're the OP with a name change fail or guessing. I suppose "the content" is what I meant by the grievance being that the email shouldn't have been written.

I would consider this quite a tricky grievance to get to stick unless the criticism was offensive or discriminatory. It's not unlawful for managers to discuss staff performance issues by email.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with providing feedback or having a difference of opinion- as long as they weren’t discriminatory

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 18/10/2023 17:19

One manager is allowed to give another manager their opinion on an employee's competence or performance. Discriminatory or offensive language would obviously be wrong, but communication regarding performance is well within the realm of normal people management.

If you are literally just complaining about the fact that your manager has communicated an opinion about your performance to another manager, you have no real case for a grievance. And raising a (pointless) grievance in that scenario is a sure-fire way to put yourself at the top of the redundancy list next time there's a restructure. That may not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia · 18/10/2023 17:39

Webex · 17/10/2023 13:04

How employers perceive people availing of it is up to them

Well yes and I am warning the OP that it will be perceived as kicking off - which you said was an odd thing to suggest. It's a massive overreaction to something that is not even a dispute yet and may never be.

In terms of whether employees are doing nothing wrong in requesting them "at any time" I disagree and so does the ICO. See here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/law-enforcement/guide-to-le-processing/individual-rights/manifestly-unfounded-and-excessive-requests/

Edited to add: I am not saying OP would fall under this by the way - I don't know enough about it. I am just pointing out that your perception of a SAR in any circumstance as a neutral act is not all correct.

Edited

"People have the right to request: access to their personal data"

There's no qualifier saying "but only for X reason". You can request that information simply because you want it.

Excessive requests would be making a request for everything your employer holds on you multiple times. Unfounded requests would be if you were clearly only making the request to cause inconvenience or for similar spurious reasons. Neither of these cases is true for OP.

haXXor · 18/10/2023 17:51

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 17/10/2023 17:47

The OP hasn't said she's this person's diary manager.

Open calendar access is the norm in many organisations, but it doesn't mean you would be justified in rooting through calendar items that don't concern you.

Open calendar access being the norm is a ridiculous policy. Have none of you ever heard of the Principle Of Least Privilege? In any IT system, people should have the least access possible whilst still able to work and nothing more.

Maybe it's because I work in IT that I take the view that it's the responsibility of the user to secure their data, not the responsibility of others not to look.

My calendar shows only free-busy, as does my boss's.

Hibambinos · 18/10/2023 17:53

you are being scapegoated for her failings- get angry and get HR- very unprofessional

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 18/10/2023 18:05

haXXor · 18/10/2023 17:51

Open calendar access being the norm is a ridiculous policy. Have none of you ever heard of the Principle Of Least Privilege? In any IT system, people should have the least access possible whilst still able to work and nothing more.

Maybe it's because I work in IT that I take the view that it's the responsibility of the user to secure their data, not the responsibility of others not to look.

My calendar shows only free-busy, as does my boss's.

Show quote history

There are many roles where it is the employee's responsibility not to look at certain pieces of data that they theoretically have access to.

Anyone working in the NHS in a role where they can access patient systems has a responsibility not to look at the records of their friends/neighbours/relatives. Doing so would be gross misconduct, and would be the employee's fault, not the organisation's.

Similarly, if you work for HMRC, the police, social services etc. you will be banned from looking up the records of your friends/neighbours/relatives, and doing so would be gross misconduct.

Systems like these log who has accessed a record so that misconduct can be identified. That's far more straightforward than having a bespoke set of privileges for every single employee who works with that system.

A HR calendar item should be marked private so people can't access it. However, there is also a duty on employees not to go through records they know they shouldn't. If someone leaves a confidential file open on my desk, it is my job to close it and hand it to the appropriate person, not give it a good snoop. "But it was left on my desk!" would be no defence when it was obviously not meant for my eyes.

Blackandwhitemakesgrey · 18/10/2023 20:47

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 18/10/2023 18:05

There are many roles where it is the employee's responsibility not to look at certain pieces of data that they theoretically have access to.

Anyone working in the NHS in a role where they can access patient systems has a responsibility not to look at the records of their friends/neighbours/relatives. Doing so would be gross misconduct, and would be the employee's fault, not the organisation's.

Similarly, if you work for HMRC, the police, social services etc. you will be banned from looking up the records of your friends/neighbours/relatives, and doing so would be gross misconduct.

Systems like these log who has accessed a record so that misconduct can be identified. That's far more straightforward than having a bespoke set of privileges for every single employee who works with that system.

A HR calendar item should be marked private so people can't access it. However, there is also a duty on employees not to go through records they know they shouldn't. If someone leaves a confidential file open on my desk, it is my job to close it and hand it to the appropriate person, not give it a good snoop. "But it was left on my desk!" would be no defence when it was obviously not meant for my eyes.

Edited

Show quote history

The OP has already confirmed she did not deliberately snoop . Your post only gives examples of deliberate snooping and I’m unsure what part is relevant to the OP?

haXXor · 19/10/2023 18:16

Anyone working in the NHS in a role where they can access patient systems has a responsibility not to look at the records of their friends/neighbours/relatives. Doing so would be gross misconduct, and would be the employee's fault, not the organisation's.

I'm aware of how bad data guardianship practices are in the NHS and how an abusive ex can look up his victim's medical records. I'm aware that the logs aren't checked unless someone complains. That's why I opted out of the Summary Care Records system.

Mumaway · 19/10/2023 18:43

What a brilliantly worded response. Can you help me with my bullying boss??