Hi.

As some of you may know, I'm having problems with my employer.

Their latest "trick" was to call for a capability meeting (I have a "protected characteristic)

So far, ok. I have no problem with that...

We (Union Rep and I) went through. We discussed it, we all agreed on a slight amendment to my work. Basically, they agreed to curtail the amount I drive. The agreement was three days a week, I would be limited to under 200 mile, and I would agree that the other two days, I could do over that amount, but not over 300.

The people there were:

Head of HR.

My Line Manager.

My Union Rep.

Recorder.

Myself.

Everyone seemed happy.

About two weeks later, I got an invite to a "follow up" meeting to discuss it. As it was a "follow up meeting" I thought it was just as well to go alone, as the trip is 250 miles, and it didn't seem worth dragging a Union guy along.

As soon as they found out I was alone, they delayed the start of the meeting for 40 minutes.

When it finally started, the HR person excused herself, and was replaced by another manager.

So, at this meeting, there was:

Manager No1.

Manager No2.

Myself.

Note taker.

Then, basically, they laid into me nonstop, slagging off. I would also say that most of what they said was complete bull****. "Figures and data" pulled from thin air, etc. Finally, they told me that my hours were to be cut from 40 hours to 15.

They followed this up with a letter than made even more ridiculous accusations, None of which were either true, and furthermore, they couldn't actually quote any reference or back up with any form of details of specific instances.

They reiterated the cut from 40 to 15 hours...

What I'm asking is, was the 2nd "follow up" meeting even legit?

We had the first Formal "Capability meeting", we came to an agreement - then the invite to a "follow up" meeting arrived (And I quote)

"Please attend a follow up meeting on Friday 1st June 2018 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

During this meeting we will discuss the adjustments that you have requested and what measures we can put in place to support your request."

Obviously, they didn't discuss the details from the first meeting, simply ran riot and called it a Capability meeting.

Any thoughts?

What is your protected characteristic?

It's under Disability. Don't really want to go much into it, but it's not significant enough to much, just the amount of driving I should be doing...

Ahhhh that old misconception.

Its a protected characteristic to an extent.

Reasonable adjustment yes.

Does it protect your job.... No.

Otherwise high rise window cleaners would be sued for not employing wheelchair users to climb ladders.

The word is reasonable.

You still have to be caperble.

From a "capability" point of view, I am fine to do the same work as any of my colleagues. In fact, let's get off the fence. I am BETTER than they are. More qualifications, more experience, more positive customer feedback, etc.

However, since my work learned about my disability (Which they caused, btw - and they've admitted liability on that score.) - they've suddenly increased my mileages to the point I am doing 50% more than my colleagues.

BUT. Can we stay on point as to the question?

Are they allowed to do am official "capability meeting," with HR, Union, etc., and deem me fit to work with minor adjustments, then change it without another formal meeting (Just the ambushed one without my Union Rep.)

If your work caused your disability then sue them for a six figure sum.

Why would you want to work for a company that you say does that to its employees?

Ambushed???

You could of asked for a recess for legal advice.

You could of walked out.

You could of asked for the meeting to stay on topic and just shown the letter

I did read your original post on this, and to be frank I lost interest as you were not taking advice given especially from sangie, a well known and respected union rep

How many times are we going to retread this ground?

You do not have a disbaility in employment law terms until the court says you do, and the fact you can drive 200 miles a day suggests that is cobblers.

I've got to ask why you even responded to this post then?

I asked a specific question, it's not been answered by you, so why are you referring to another post? I'm confused about your reference to Sangie on the other post, as there are two comments from him on it, and I've taken them on board, so I don't see what that's about from you.

For the record....

Asked for recess for legal advice? - I have on file, a specific email from them REFUSING ME THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANY FORM OF LEGAL ADVICE.

Walking out? How could I? That would have been taken as a resignation.

They refused to stay on topic, no matter what I tried.

I'm well aware of the "advice" from the other thread, but HERE, I asked a specific question. Rather than that, you prefer to troll me. Don't bother with any further comments, thanks.

We're not retreading ground?

I asked a specific question about the form this interview took. I was not notified it was a capability meeting, I asked about that "meeting" and the form it took. Not about disability, not about anything else.

Same response as to Sgt - if you can't answer the question I asked, don't bother commenting...

We're not retreading ground?

 

I asked a specific question about the form this interview took. I was not notified it was a capability meeting, I asked about that "meeting" and the form it took. Not about disability, not about anything else.

 

Same response as to Sgt - if you can't answer the question I asked, don't bother commenting...

Good advice needs actual facts. Whether you have a protected characteristic matters in deciding if this is unlawful discrimination. So take the hump all you like but you need to work with actual facts and stop inventing them.

The meeting was not a disciplinary so ACAS guidelines do not apply; so yes, they can talk to you about stuff when they want, they are the bosses.

Whether the outcome is legal is another thing; enforced change of contract with no notice and no consultation? You can stall it. You can try and get compensation for buy-down of hours. But you can't stop it. And you have no grounds for a discrimination claim, which is the important point, because you have no protected characteristic.

And banging on about how you are the best engineer will not help, because the best person with the least flexibility is not the best person. They're just an ego you can't use how you want to.

So once again: get a new job.

I agree with all the advice given here, but I'd have to ask - there has to be more to this story than is posted here. There's no employer on earth thinks they can reduce contractual hours from 40 to 15 "just like that". So what are the ridiculous things they've accused you of? Because they must surely have a weather eye on a possible tribunal claim, especially with a union involved, so I'd be interested to know why they would even think they can unilaterally cut contractual hours.... They must have given a reason.

And I have to agree, anyone who can drive 200 miles with a disability can drive 300 with a disability, or 400, or whatever. You either have a disability that has a permanent or long lasting and significant impact on your ability to do something on a day to day basis, or you do not. If you can drive up to 200 miles regularly, which you say you can, there really isn't any significant impact -even if the condition otherwise would constitute a disability. Although I'm not seeing any evidence that it does, here or on the other thread.

I definitely am disabled in law. There are things that I cannot do, or can only do with great difficulty. But I can drive 200 miles. So I have no cause to claim that my disability prevents me from driving 300 miles. That would be ridiculous. 200 miles is already a long distance. It might be different if I could only comfortably drive 10 miles. The impacts for me are in other areas of work - I can't claim disabilities in every aspect of life, nor would I wish to. To be perfectly honest, your argument appears to be that you cannot drive long distances, and if you cannot drive long distances then your contract is frustrated because you are a mobile engineer and driving is the job! That comes down to capability - you cannot do the job that you were employed to do.

Be honest - what is it that you really want here? Because getting your own way and only doing that part of the job you want to do doesn't appear to be on the cards. Are you looking for a payout? Redundancy? Because your appear to be remarkably resistant to the idea of doing what anyone else would do, and getting another job; so surely you have something in mind that doesn't involve you getting dismissed, which appears to be the direction this is very obviously going in....

so what is your protected characteristic? cancer, MS, only 1 leg?

I am not being flippant but trying to ascertain why you are to be automatically treated as being disabled. I am also aware of your other thread. Have you considered the alternatives to what you are doing at present, TBH it would ahve been eaiser for you to tell them fro the outset that you cnat do certainthings and see what they offer as an alternative rather than telling them you can still do just about everything but driving long way isnt very nice for you. They have now taken that as a challenge to see how far they can push this. No employer, if they are homest and speak to you in an unguarded moment will ever say they are delighted that you can only do some of the job and will continue to employ you on about the same terms. when I was diagnosed with MS my employer got the procedures for testing may capabilites and managing my illness completely wrong but I saw what woudl happen if they dioidn egt round to getting their act together so agreed a settlemet witht ehm to take early retirement. Despite being quite poor as a result of this change in income I am happy I did this as the alternative woul have been at leat 2 years without a penny in income whislt I spent all of that time fighting a court claim and end up not much better off regarding the cash and no pension until I got to 65.

They will have an outcome they would like and one they will settle for. You had better look at your situation and see what you can live with and try and get them to meet you there. This may mean a different role, accepting severence on suitable terms or accepting any amount aof ordure they care to pile on you and staying as you are. f you have all of these falsehoods down in writing use that to your advantage. Try and get your union legal involved and see if they think there is mileage in it beyond the simple keeping the same employment.

I'm trying to clear the air a bit here. I appreciate what you're saying. I appreciate what some said on the other post too.

Irrespective of those comments, and as I said, some are very pertinent... All I'm trying to do is find out about this "Capability" meeting and it's "official" format...

As said (No fabrication, no distortion, or anything like that..)

I was invited to a Capability Meeting on the 3rd May. Union Rep was there, HR was there, Line Manager was there, I was there, a recorder was there.

WE discussed the "reasonable adjustments" requested. It went back and forth, and the company AGREED - in front of the Union Rep, that they were happy with the adjustments. To me, that seemed reasonably fair. The adjustments were - only two days a week over 200 miles, some additional training. It's maybe worth noting, we (Union and myself) made a complaint about the HR person, because she made (In his words) inappropriate and unprofessional comments, both about me, and (For some reason, don't ask me why) my wife.

Then I got an Invite to a further meeting for the 1st of June. And I've quoted the exact wording (With location excluded): "Please attend a follow up meeting on Friday 1st June 2018 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

During this meeting we will discuss the adjustments that you have requested and what measures we can put in place to support your request."

I went alone, as I didn't think a Union rep was required to attend what I was classing as a discussion on the matter.

When they knew I was alone, they delayed the start of the meeting for 40 minutes, dismissed the HR person who was supposed to be there, and brought in another manager. When the meeting did start. there was absolutely no discussion about the previous meeting, just a series of statements and allegations that I had no idea about, that they had no documentary evidence of, and made a completely different "demand" from the one discussed at the original meeting. All I'm asking is IS THIS ALLOWED?

To reiterate: At the formal Capability Meeting, the agreement was reached in consultation with Myself, the Union, and HR.

At this "follow up" meeting, two managers just simply put random facts together, fabricated others, made blatantly false claims in others, refused to discuss the agreed adjustments, and dictated a cut in my working hours. I don't know if it's relevant, but they also admitted that they have ALREADY recruited and employed another engineer, specifically to replace me. End of.

Just to add. I have NEVER had a disciplinary or other meeting (Formal or otherwise) about any aspect of my work before this kicked off.

So, without any drama, all I'm asking, is this the correct way of doing things?

I'm trying to clear the air a bit here. I appreciate what you're saying. I appreciate what some said on the other post too.

 

Irrespective of those comments, and as I said, some are very pertinent... All I'm trying to do is find out about this "Capability" meeting and it's "official" format...

 

As said (No fabrication, no distortion, or anything like that..)

 

I was invited to a Capability Meeting on the 3rd May. Union Rep was there, HR was there, Line Manager was there, I was there, a recorder was there.

WE discussed the "reasonable adjustments" requested. It went back and forth, and the company AGREED - in front of the Union Rep, that they were happy with the adjustments. To me, that seemed reasonably fair. The adjustments were - only two days a week over 200 miles, some additional training. It's maybe worth noting, we (Union and myself) made a complaint about the HR person, because she made (In his words) inappropriate and unprofessional comments, both about me, and (For some reason, don't ask me why) my wife.

 

Then I got an Invite to a further meeting for the 1st of June. And I've quoted the exact wording (With location excluded): "Please attend a follow up meeting on Friday 1st June 2018 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

During this meeting we will discuss the adjustments that you have requested and what measures we can put in place to support your request."

 

I went alone, as I didn't think a Union rep was required to attend what I was classing as a discussion on the matter.

 

When they knew I was alone, they delayed the start of the meeting for 40 minutes, dismissed the HR person who was supposed to be there, and brought in another manager. When the meeting did start. there was absolutely no discussion about the previous meeting, just a series of statements and allegations that I had no idea about, that they had no documentary evidence of, and made a completely different "demand" from the one discussed at the original meeting. All I'm asking is IS THIS ALLOWED?

 

To reiterate: At the formal Capability Meeting, the agreement was reached in consultation with Myself, the Union, and HR.

At this "follow up" meeting, two managers just simply put random facts together, fabricated others, made blatantly false claims in others, refused to discuss the agreed adjustments, and dictated a cut in my working hours. I don't know if it's relevant, but they also admitted that they have ALREADY recruited and employed another engineer, specifically to replace me. End of.

 

Just to add. I have NEVER had a disciplinary or other meeting (Formal or otherwise) about any aspect of my work before this kicked off.

 

So, without any drama, all I'm asking, is this the correct way of doing things?

And you've had an answer. The employer can have a meeting with you about any thing they please. Reiterating the same information you have already posted doesn't get you a different answer. Actually answering the questions you are asked might, but you seem remarkably resistant to that concept. Until you do, you are wasting your time expecting any different answer. You seem to think that vague one sided information enables us to understand what is going on. You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse your employer of doing - creating a series of random facts and expecting us to know what that means. It is you that is adding the drama by posting lots of extraneous information and expecting us to sift through it and come up with an answer when you won't provide the information we ask for.

If all you want to know is can an employer have a meeting with an employee, the answer is yes they can.

Sangie you write too much!!

The short answer is......

YES they can

It seems the OP only wants to hear what they want to hear, and doesnt want to provide the info on which a focused answer can then be given.

Of course, anyone who doesn't immediately tell them what they want to hear is "trolling'. (No, they aren't, they are trying to help you, but you have to help yourself by letting others help you!)

I base the fact the OP thinks they are being trolled on:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?487920-Trolling-blocking-people&p=5127756#post5127756

Solution: block me, Sangie, Emmzi, sgtbush, and all the other "trolls" / 'people who tell you what you need to hear, not just what you want to hear'.

Then you'll get to hear what you want to hear. Bingo!.

The only slight problem is that it'll then likely go wrong for you ; but if you aren't going to let those posters who know about not only the principles, but also the practice, of employment law (such as Sangie and Emmzi) help you, that is the likely outcome anyway ......

To my mind, this isn't so different from the OP's other thread(s), that it needs a merge with the previous thread

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486489-Harrassment-Injury&p=5113092#post5113092

(and likely the 'trolling' thread added in too, just so people considering replying can see how they'll likely be viewed / treated by the OP).

The OP wants to "clear the air"?..... No, it seems to me they just want to ask the same sorts of questions again, without their previous avoidance of questions and disdain of respondents being visible....

They can talk to you any time about your health.

Whether they were in fact holding an investigatory disciplinary meeting will depend on the topics of "just simply put random facts together, fabricated others, made blatantly false claims in others" - too little detail to advise.

Previous advice however holds good. Knowing the law is one thing, enforcing it is another. They want you out, they respond poorly to greivances so that's not a productive route, and a ET takes forever and is really stressful.

When you have raised a grevance and they've essentially done nothing, it's time to realise this is not an environment aligned with your needs.

Why is your union rep not answering these questions for you? You seem to not want to tell us the specific content of the meeting, so maybe you would be more comfortable telling him.

Having read the totally ludicrous allegations made against people by this OP, I'm out. I have much better things to do than try to help someone who accuses me of trolling. The advice I give here, like it or not, is given for free - I get paid a nice tidy sum to give it in other circumstances, and you won't find many who are willing to do so for free. I'm sure that is true of others here too. It isn't nice to have random accusations and unfounded allegations made against you - is it OP? Since that appears to be what YOU are complaining about, but not above making yourself?

Id be interested how he got a dislocated cervical vertebrae.

This is what the op states as the disability is in the original post.