Abusive. aggressive employee

[snadge]

Well I work in the construction industry and we also have to wear orange overalls as a "hi viz" type aid for drivers of vehicles.

If we didn't wear 'em we would be sacked, plain and simple.

no 2 ways about it, if the blokes been warned several times and he's still being a tit, sack him, I would have no issues about doing it, if there was an accident his supervisor would also be liable for not implementing company h&s policy.

would people here still be as quick to defend if the the bloke in question continually broke the site speed limits in a truck.

health and safety rules may be a bit restrictive at times but they are there for a reason.

 

[revol68]

(((bosses)))

Seriously is Urban filled with management and bosses or something?

There's quite a few ex bosses of mine that needed a good fucking smack.

 

[cesare]

I will try and give some more info without giving too much away, there are after all people on here who know me and it wouldnt take too much to work out identities.

Suffice to say, Company provides service in construction/quarry industry. Employee carries out that service. Quarries require all subcontractors to wear certain items of PPE including ORANGE overalls. Employye was once dismissed for not wearing PPE. Was reinstated on appeal. Has had subsequent warnings for continual refusal to wear overalls. He is banned from certain customers sites, to the point that at times it has been difficult to provide him with a full days work. He has made written undertakings to wear his overalls, in his original contract and following written warnings, he continues to refuse to wear them.

Any more infor please ask, and stop being fucking pedantic "oh he might be an office worker" FFS some of you people!

OK this is a bit different (but cheers for posting the extra info)

When you first started the thread you said he'd had 2x previous warnings; you didn't say anything about a previous dismissal that was overturned at appeal. Nor anything about banning from customer sites & written undertakings to wear PPE that he subsequently reneged on.

And as you're taking the piss just for me even asking whether he's actually an ops worker as opposed to an office worker (and that's not an unreasonable question) - presumably he's on ops.

It's been like drawing teeth just to get this limited info out of you after pages and pages of questions.

I'm feeling pretty frustrated myself after pages of this & loads of questions that you haven't answered until now so fuck knows what the bloke in question feels like on the receiving end if you/your work is the same in real life.

If wearing PPE is such a HUGE issue, I still don't understand why your company has let it get to this point. If he was previously dismissed for this - surely his reinstatement would have made it clear that any future breaches would result in his dismissal. Yet you say that the warnings were after his reinstatement: Was reinstated on appeal. Has had subsequent warnings for continual refusal to wear overalls


I suspect there's a shitload more that would come out if we kept on asking you questions. But that would take loads of bloody effort.

My interpretation is that all you want is to be able to sack this guy with an urban stamp of approval. It's not as simple as that.

If you want advice on how to sack him safely; check out the ACAS site.

Or follow PK's advice and see where that leads you

 

[revol68]

Cesare the way you treat bosses and managers is little more than a type of racism, it's people like you that mean bosses and workers can't work and live together in harmony.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

 

[cesare]

Cesare the way you treat bosses and managers is little more than a type of racism, it's people like you that mean bosses and workers can't work and live together in harmony.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

I know

I'm doing an exaggerated Les Dawson bridle with my arms tucked under my bust whilst giving 1927 a 'look' over the fence.

 

[cesare]

Take that! Capital.

 

[poster342002]

Seriously is Urban filled with management and bosses or something?

Increasingly, it would appear so.

 

[poster342002]

How do you define 'boss'?

Does it kick in at a low paid supervisor earning 50p more an hour than their 'team'?

Yes, when that "low paid supervisor" lords it over their subordinates. In my experience, it's precisley those jumped-up fuckers one micro-grade above that have been the most spiteful, petty and powermad little turds.

 

[poster342002]

@posternumbers one problem I see with your position is that, if everyone who had left-wing views refused promotion, then the management roles would all be given to true right-wingers. I don't think any of us would want that.

To be honest, at least you'd know where you stood rather than deal with some two-faced hypocrite who talks left but then disciplines/sacks you anyway for "disrespeting them as a manager" or having "the wrong attitude".

 

[Funky_monks]

This thread is brilliant!

God knows how long it has taken pressure from workers/unions etc for bosses to be frightened of litigation enough to provide proper PPE.

I'd kick up a right stink if my boss didn't provide my waterproofs/safety boots. Theres no fucking way I'd want to pay for those things myself, especially at the rate they get worn through.

If he provided a set of overalls for nowt as well then so much the better.

Presumably this 'agressive' employee wants to wear his own clothes out?

What a numpty.

I cant understand whats left wing about not wanting your boss to buy these things for you to be honest.

 

[1927]

OK this is a bit different (but cheers for posting the extra info)

When you first started the thread you said he'd had 2x previous warnings; you didn't say anything about a previous dismissal that was overturned at appeal. Nor anything about banning from customer sites & written undertakings to wear PPE that he subsequently reneged on.

And as you're taking the piss just for me even asking whether he's actually an ops worker as opposed to an office worker (and that's not an unreasonable question) - presumably he's on ops.

It's been like drawing teeth just to get this limited info out of you after pages and pages of questions.

I'm feeling pretty frustrated myself after pages of this & loads of questions that you haven't answered until now so fuck knows what the bloke in question feels like on the receiving end if you/your work is the same in real life.

If wearing PPE is such a HUGE issue, I still don't understand why your company has let it get to this point. If he was previously dismissed for this - surely his reinstatement would have made it clear that any future breaches would result in his dismissal. Yet you say that the warnings were after his reinstatement: Was reinstated on appeal. Has had subsequent warnings for continual refusal to wear overalls


I suspect there's a shitload more that would come out if we kept on asking you questions. But that would take loads of bloody effort.

My interpretation is that all you want is to be able to sack this guy with an urban stamp of approval. It's not as simple as that.

If you want advice on how to sack him safely; check out the ACAS site.

Or follow PK's advice and see where that leads you

When I first posted I only mentioned the one incident to see what peeps would think if this was a one off/first incident. some people said sack him just on that basis. As I have given more info more people have come out and said sack him. Personally I think this thread has actually been very interesting for some of the opinions posted. i cannot understand those that have said boss=bad, employee=good, irrelevant of any facts before them. As has been pointed out it nothing short of a type of racism and opens up a lot of other arguments we could have about employee/ employer relationships.

If you are interested the employee was reinstated not for any reason other than the owner of the company is actually a nice guy, the employee had been caught and photographed by a client working on an unpropped tipper body,an absolute no-no as anyone with experience of such things would know, and not wearing PPE! He is still banned from all that customers' sites.

The employee didnt think he even deserved a warning and said that if he got one he would be getting union involved, he got a warning anyway.Personally I think he prob got off lightly and any union who defends him in full knowledge of the facts and the employees past misdemeanours would be unreasonable, but there you go. If the union are as one eyed as some posters on this thread i guess they will be waiting outside the gates tomorrow morning!!

 

[two sheds]

When I first posted I only mentioned the one incident to see what peeps would think if this was a one off/first incident. some people said sack him just on that basis. As I have given more info more people have come out and said sack him. Personally I think this thread has actually been very interesting for some of the opinions posted. i cannot understand those that have said boss=bad, employee=good, irrelevant of any facts before them. As has been pointed out it nothing short of a type of racism and opens up a lot of other arguments we could have about employee/ employer relationships.

If you are interested the employee was reinstated not for any reason other than the owner of the company is actually a nice guy, the employee had been caught and photographed by a client working on an unpropped tipper body,an absolute no-no as anyone with experience of such things would know, and not wearing PPE! He is still banned from all that customers' sites.

The employee didnt think he even deserved a warning and said that if he got one he would be getting union involved, he got a warning anyway.Personally I think he prob got off lightly and any union who defends him in full knowledge of the facts and the employees past misdemeanours would be unreasonable, but there you go. If the union are as one eyed as some posters on this thread i guess they will be waiting outside the gates tomorrow morning!!

How does he feel about purple?

 

[Citizen66]

butt he whole point here is that we don't have the whole story we have the story thrid hand from an alternate staff member who seems to have an unntaral urge to want someone to be fired. In itself the story is told from that point of view.

Of course we don't know the full story. I was commenting on the information that the OP was giving, which, if a worker refuses to work on the basis that his Personal protective equipment provided for him isn't to his tastes, a rep can't defend him as it's just based on a whim rather than a true case for discrimination or flouting health and safety laws..

as a real union rep I would be livid if that were the only version of events which saw some one fired. I would at least expect to hear what the worker themselves had said or who they viewed the situation.

If you are a real union rep then you'd understand that any disciplinary action has to go through the correct procedures where you can defend the employee if employment law has been violated; with the back-up of the union members if laws are ignored or they want to take the piss.

gross misconduct of course can be followed but even then there is still a proceedure which must be followed to establish the facts of the matter which we certainly don't have here on this thread.

Perhaps the OP will expand upon how he'll choose to deal with this alleged errant worker.?

and has been said before there's a number of reasons why this person might have become aggressive.

That doesn't come into it really. If the worker has been discriminated against in any way then there's procedures to go through for that to be dealt with. Albeit, most industries aren't unionised nowadays (thanks Maggie x) but employment law still stands. To react on a personal rather than a legal level will have reduced the chance of the worker's case standing up to scrutiny in a court of law, unfortunately.

The management could cite aggression for the reason of dismissal. The worker would then have to prove what caused the aggression but should have made official complaints to higher management or independent witnesses before it reached that stage. Hindsight isn't wonderful in these circumstances.

But if he's lucky enough to be backed up with a pro union that know what they're talking about; then the OP better watch his back as the management has to start jumping through all the legal hoops themselves to prove the correct procedures were carried out and are water-tight

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'd kick up a right stink if my boss didn't provide my waterproofs/safety boots. Theres no fucking way I'd want to pay for those things myself, especially at the rate they get worn through.

If he provided a set of overalls for nowt as well then so much the better.

Presumably this 'agressive' employee wants to wear his own clothes out?

I cant understand whats left wing about not wanting your boss to buy these things for you to be honest.

Word.

 

[Wilf]

I'd still like Trinnie and Susannah to take a look. Can't be too careful.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'd still like Trinnie and Susannah to take a look. Can't be too careful.