In the council environment I work in these are some extra hours available on Fridays for 3 months.

I do not work Fridays.

The manager has asked one person to do these hours for 3 months. This person has accepted.

There were 4 people who would have been interested, if asked.

This extra work was not made public until this was announced yesterday.

Should extra work be advertised so all those interested can put their name forward or can you just give it to a "favourite" without asking others?

Thanks.

In theory yes but even if that happened would the result be any different. All you can do is take up the matter as an equal opportunities issue with a union rep and get them to persuade the manager to consider the matter more carefuly and set up a procedure to ensure fairness and transparency in the future.

In theory yes .

but there is no legal requirement whatsoever

feel free to negotiate a fair rota system but in my experience expect more hassle from your co-workers than the managers, overtime brings out the worst in folk, for the last few years i dealt with workforce issues i refused to even take complaints unless the person could evidence to me they were getting nothing and there were no valid reasons why not. All it ever involved was bitching, backstabbing and people shafting each other.

The manager has obviously blatantly discriminated in favour of one individual by offering him the overtime.

Unless you formally register your objection to this action what's to stop him selecting someone else for a cut in hours without consultation? And what argument could you make for objecting in that case if you did not in this case?

The manager has obviously blatantly discriminated in favour of one individual by offering him the overtime.

 

Again, not in the legal sense of the word.

The manager has obviously blatantly discriminated in favour of one individual

by offering him the overtime.

In the absence of a rational explanation from that manager as to why he did what he did I can think of no other word for it.

If that manager used the same technique to select someone for redundancy would not that be illegal?

One of the striking observations I have made on this web site is the number of times people tend to ignore and overlook instances of downright maltreatment at their work, which, if nipped in the bud, would prevent anguish verging on desparation later.

Skinnered, that may be so but in the eyes of the law disrimination only applies if it is due to a protected characteristic. Gender, age etc.

I would emphasise it is downright dangerous to incite people to action and bandy terms around when they have no legal basis.

sometimes it's "tough luck" and an adult conversation will get you so much further than waving "ooman rights" about the place. a confrontational approach should always be the LAST act, not the first! people need to earn and eat.

caring guy, do you know why the overtime was only offered to one person - would the management have been aware that other people would have been interested? Just thinking that maybe the person who was offered the overtime might have previously requested it.

Is there any policy regarding allocation of overtime, either written or generally accepted practice?

it happens, complain or not but it wont make any difference if he wants to give it to a certain person. if its overtime comes up on a regular basis just tell him now that you would like to be considered for it in the future. But dont get into a discussion on it not being fair etc etc with the manager just makes you look like a whinger

The overtime was only offered to one person and this temporary job was kept quiet.

My assistant manager only knew about this when they received a call telling them the manager's decision. My assistant manager says they were not consulted at all and does not want the person selected for overtime.

The person who has the overtime did request extra work.

The person who go the work is not qualified. The four people not asked are all qualified to do the job.

I'm not sure if there is a policy on overtime but as it's the council there must be an equal opportunities argument to be had.

Thanks for all of your replies - even those I do not agree with.

Just register your interest for overtime in the future, the manager can offer overtime to who he wishes and although in your opinion the person who got it is not qualified the manager obviously knows what he can do, if it all goes wrong he will think again. The assistant manager is just that the managers assistant and doesnt have to be consulted on everything by the manager. Making too much of a fuss will look bad on you, and if the person asked to do the overtime looses it because of you (and someone elsr gets it) working with them wont be very pleasent.

Yes, just send a quick email to the manager indicating that if any overtime is available going forward you would be interested in taking some. It could be that he's unaware of your interest.

What do you mean by the person who got the overtime wasn't qualified?

The manager should in all fairness, after taking into account any special reasons, allocate overtime proprtionally to those who are available and request it. Otherwise, he will lose credibility as a manager and demotivate the remaining staff. If the person getting the overtime is annoyed at losing some, then that's unfortunate, and if they're aggrieved at you, its not really your problem as you're only asking for fairness and the person getting the overtime at the moment should be able to see that.

What do you mean by the person who got the overtime wasn't qualified?

The job that I do I have a work-related qualification, as have the 3 other people.

The person who has got the overtime has not completed this course as his job role involves driving a vehicle only.

What do you mean by the person who got the overtime wasn't qualified?

 

The job that I do I have a work-related qualification, as have the 3 other people.

 

The person who has got the overtime has not completed this course as his job role involves driving a vehicle only.

But does that mean he's legally precluded from doing the overtime - is the qualification essential or merely beneficial?

But does that mean he's legally precluded from doing the overtime - is the qualification essential or merely beneficial?

The qualification is beneficial.

The qualification is beneficial.

Ok, thanks, then I'd say having or not having the qualification shouldn't really be a factor in how the overtime is allocated.

Some managers allow power to go to their heads. They get to a stage where they believe that they have a God-given right to have their dictats accepted without question. They are encouraged and strengthened in this belief when their subordinates succumb and comply timidly without question to their whims.

Let me respond to the points Emmzzi has raised:

Skinnered, that may be so but in the eyes of the law disrimination only applies

if it is due to a protected characteristic. Gender, age etc.

In the eyes of the law discrimination is the unfair treatment of one employee compared to another, or the preferential treatment of one compared to another.

The list Emmzzi refers to as being of a 'protected characteristic' is one that the law specificall states are examples of where discrimination unquestionably occurs if that was the reason for the treatment received. This is not to say that a case of discrimination could not be made if an employee believed and claimed he was discriminated against for some other reason not on the list. It would be for the claimant to make the case.

Caring Guy was not made aware of the opportunity for the overtime in question, which also seems to be an extra job with possibilities, far less given an opportunity to apply for it. It seems even the assistant manager was kept out of the loop and was presented with a done deal.

Since there was no consultation or discussion it is by no means clear whether or not the reason for the selection was indeed based on one or other of the 'protected characteristics', of which Emmzzi speaks, which would make it automatically unfair in the eyes of the law.

I would emphasise it is downright dangerous to incite people to action and bandy

terms around when they have no legal basis.

Caring Guy is aggrieved, he is not happy with the way he has been treated. Using established grievance procedures to get answers that have not so far been forthcoming could hardly be described as 'inciting'. The whole point of a grievance procedue is to use it to resolve issues such as this. Failure to use it as intended can only lead to serious repercussions later on.

I'm not sure which terms I have bandied about that have no legal basis. I would merely emphasise that it is downright dangerous to allow one's self to be treated like dirt and have one's employment rights and expectations, obligations even, of fair treatment trampled underfoot.

sometimes it's "tough luck" and an adult conversation will get you so much

further than waving "ooman rights" about the place. a confrontational approach

should always be the LAST act, not the first!

From what Caring Guy has already related an 'adult' conversation has already been had to no avail, even the other manager hasn't got a clue what is going on. Accepting unfair treatment and putting it down as 'tough luck' is not good enough, it only encourages more of the same.

I don't believe 'ooman rights' have been waved about by anyone. If they were, would that be so repulsive? Like other laws we are governed by then and answerable under them for flouting them.

Of course it would suit such as the character imposing his will in this case if the recipients of his arbitrary decisions just rolled over and took the kicking.

people need to earn and eat.

I suggest Caring Guy should do, and is doing, all within his power to avail himself of and retain that facility and would hesitate to advise him to do anything that would put that end in jeopardy.

what you are getting wrong here skinnered is that this simply is not discrimination, it is at best favouritism, CG has not posted one thing here that even makes any form of legal challenge possible. I completely agree that he needs to fight his corner but this needs to be done carefully as going in all guns blazing when you have NOTHING to fall back on always leaves you three steps back from your start position. I believe what emmz was trying to get across is that when you give advice here we all need to be very careful that we don't send that person back into work with the employment relations knowledge consisting of 30 mins internet reading and a feeling they are being wronged to an extent where their managers drop to their knees begging forgivness for their dastardly deeds.

We've all heard the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" the simple part is the advice, applying it when they may be in a room on their own with 3-4 well trained managers and HR bods is a whole different ball game. There have been many occasions when i've felt like saying "here this argument will be your friend", but i have not done because i know it isn't me putting it forward, it is an inexperienced, usually frightened and stressed novice.

By equating these actions to plainly illegal acts such as cutting of hours without consultation it can get people who want to hear good thing to think they have a case which can be setlled outside of the employer, i repeat this is not discrimination on what has been put by CG, it is favouritism or indolence, both of which have as little standing in law as i have winning the "who's getting my bankcard on payday" contest with the wife

Hopefully the more tepid response will get the point across that we can never tell or lead people to hear what they want instead of what they need to hear and we need to remember at all times most people wanting advice are like manuel from barcelona

It isn't clear in this case that favouritism is being shown, it could be that the manager had been approached by one person only about overtime and allocated the overtime was awarded on that basis.

It isn't quite right though Atlas that there is no legal challenge to favouritism, if for example overtime was deliberately and blatantly awarded to only one person there could be a potential constructuve dismissal case.

if for example overtime was deliberately and blatantly awarded to only one person there could be a potential constructuve dismissal case.

case in point

case in point

Pot & kettle.

There's also no point saying there is no possible case when one may exist just because that's what people want to hear.

In post one CG asks whether or not the additional hours of overtime, 3 months worth, be shared more equally. I say yes. I also say I would demand to know why it was not.

The second post he writes, No 11, he says that the manager for whom that person is to work for was not consulted and that he did not want the person to be inflicted on him anyway.

CG also says that this person is not qualified whereas he and his colleagues are.

CG and his colleagues who are qualified have been discriminated against in favour of someone who is unqualified. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Why were they discriminated against is the question.How can you guys claim that there was no discrimination that could be actionable unless you are told why the decision was taken in the first place?

What was done and the way it was done stinks and CG and his colleagues are rightly miffed.

All I’m suggesting is that CG make a formal complaint and have his grievance put on the record. The management will then have to respond.What response is required? An explanation for why the selection was made in the way it was made, where’s the crime in that? I’m not suggesting starting a general strike.

The opinions I have of the type of management that is regularly complained of on here are my own. I am not insisting that anyone else subscribe to those opinions. I am beginning to suspect that there is a coven of such management active on here.

Having decided now that it is for the best to let this manager get away with his action without so much as a by your leave, you are now suggesting that CG is too stupid to make his own mind up and definitely rising above his station in raising his grievance in the first place. Anyway he has now had the benefit of two extreme options; lie down and die or get a life.

I am confident that, having weighed his options, CG will do what he considers is best for him.

By your logic Atlas01, it is pointless asking on here for advice; it is stupid to consider it, and those of us who propose being positive rather than give up had better not bother taking part at all.

Whilst debate is healthy, let's also be careful that the thread does not descend into an argument. The OP has been offered a range of views, based on a mixture of legal moral and ethical principles.

Whilst all will offer the OP an opportunity to take a view and to attempt to deal with the problem, it has to be pointed out that there is a danger in the lines becoming blurred. There are limits in terms of the way that the employer SHOULD be behaving and what they HAVE to do in order to act lawfully. From what has been disclosed in the OP and subsequently, whilst the employer may be guilty of acting unfairly, it is potentially very dangerous to bandy words like discrimination about when there is no evidence of anything taking place which is actionable. Had the workers not offered overtime all been female/gay/Hindu/pregnant etc and only a male/straight/Christian colleague was given the hours then this may be the case, but favouritism in itself is not unlawful. It does though, as clearly demonstrated here, not lend itself to harmony in the workplace.

Neither does a disproportionate, or ill advised response tend to endear an employee to the management. That isn't to say that one should simply roll over and accept a situation - merely that caution should sometimes be the watchword. Considering legal action should rarely be the first angle of attack, and suggestions of there being a possibility of Constructive Dismissal are IMO, somewhat far fetched.

As far as the information goes here, I do not see anything which warrants more than a grievance. Place the dissatisfaction on record and see what the response is. Maybe have a chat with the Union, if you are a member, but be careful HOW you escalate this, and do not be inclined to make a bigger deal of it than it is - what is certain is that there are 101 ways in which an employee's future can become limited when they are seen as an irritation, or are overly questioning of the way that the organisation is run.

In post one CG asks whether or not the additional hours of overtime, 3 months worth, be shared more equally. I say yes. I also say I would demand to know why it was not.

By all means ask, but DEMAND? I do not think there are grounds to DEMAND anything...

 

The second post he writes, No 11, he says that the manager for whom that person is to work for was not consulted and that he did not want the person to be inflicted on him anyway.

 

CG also says that this person is not qualified whereas he and his colleagues are.

CG and his colleagues who are qualified have been discriminated against in favour of someone who is unqualified. That is an incontrovertible fact.

But not necessarily discriminated against in any actionable sense unless the reason for the employee being given overtime was a breach of a protected characteristic. Not being qualified to the same level is NOT discrimination. It MAY represent a H&S issue, depending on the nature of the job to be done, but that is another matter.

 

Why were they discriminated against is the question.How can you guys claim that there was no discrimination that could be actionable unless you are told why the decision was taken in the first place?

But the OP has not told us of any protected characteristic of either the person receiving the preferential treatment, OR those left out. I feel that this would have been disclosed early on, but all that has been disclosed was an issue over training and qualification?

 

What was done and the way it was done stinks and CG and his colleagues are rightly miffed.

Absolutely agree.

 

All I’m suggesting is that CG make a formal complaint and have his grievance put on the record. The management will then have to respond.What response is required? An explanation for why the selection was made in the way it was made, where’s the crime in that? I’m not suggesting starting a general strike.

Again, agreed. But beware of the tone used and do not expect to be given all of the details. It may be that the only response received is 'because I said so', so what then?

 

The opinions I have of the type of management that is regularly complained of on here are my own. I am not insisting that anyone else subscribe to those opinions. I am beginning to suspect that there is a coven of such management active on here.

Quite frankly that is unhelpful, unwarranted and a little offensive. The forum is comprised of people from many backgrounds - employees, employers and those with legal experience. Those with the relevant experience speak with a different perspective to those without. Pretty much the same as any forum, and indeed to a large extent as would be the case with a Tribunal.

 

Having decided now that it is for the best to let this manager get away with his action without so much as a by your leave, you are now suggesting that CG is too stupid to make his own mind up and definitely rising above his station in raising his grievance in the first place. Anyway he has now had the benefit of two extreme options; lie down and die or get a life.

And as others have suggested, there is also a warning that caution should be exercised in taking a moral argument and trying to make a legal case out of it. Knowing when to simply ask a question, and when to withdraw gracefully are equally important. Militancy is not always a desirable quality when wanting to get on in life, or in employment.

 

I am confident that, having weighed his options, CG will do what he considers is best for him.

Indeed.

 

By your logic Atlas01, it is pointless asking on here for advice; it is stupid to consider it, and those of us who propose being positive rather than give up had better not bother taking part at all.

By all means be positive, but make sure that you are sure of your position in law before making an allegation of discrimination at an employer?

 

 

 

 

 

Sidewinder,

You are basically agreeing that the points I make are valid but you advise caution and say what I think in whispers. Advice well taken if I was in an actual formal meeting.

I give more credit to those seeking advice than to suppose they would go barging into formal meetings and adopt a bombastic confrontational tone.

My method of presentation here is to inspire into action, add conviction, if you like, to what the questioner actually believes should be done but is either unsure or not confident enough to go ahead and do it. If he/she decides to make a stand they should be prepared to give as good as they take. The man or woman on the other side of the desk is not going to be impressed by submission or a limp defence, nor are they going to give a hoot about your feelling or state of mind.