Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

I agree that there is a special case to be made for the Police Force and Armed Forces. However the bulk of Crown appointments are many thousands of low paid workers who make up huge swathes of the bureaucracy of government departments - and would be greatly pleased to be "brought down to the same level" as the lowly employees who can claim unfair dismissal and redundancy payments - which many of these people cannot. Not everyone is Sir Humphrey...

Civil Servants' Conditions of Appointment are strange creatures, I agree. Technically, you cannot sack them without going through a right old parlarva, culminating in a Civil Service Commission (CSC) Tribunal. If a Civil Servant is, indeed, dismissed, an investigation will have been made by internal investigation teams, Special Branch or police officers. One of the police forces I served with was the MoD Police and we would be asked to investigate matters pertaining or relating to a Civil Servant's employment. Sometimes, a case file would be sent to H.M. Treasury Solicitor and sometimes a case file would be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. It really depended upon what the Civil Servant had been involved in. Purely Employment Law matters were dealt with by Civil Service Management.

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

Civil Servants' Conditions of Appointment are strange creatures, I agree. Technically, you cannot sack them without going through a right old parlarva, culminating in a Civil Service Commission (CSC) Tribunal. If a Civil Servant is, indeed, dismissed, an investigation will have been made by internal investigation teams, Special Branch or police officers. One of the police forces I served with was the MoD Police and we would be asked to investigate matters pertaining or relating to a Civil Servant's employment. Sometimes, a case file would be sent to H.M. Treasury Solicitor and sometimes a case file would be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. It really depended upon what the Civil Servant had been involved in. Purely Employment Law matters were dealt with by Civil Service Management.

Yes. What I am concerned about is the literally thousands upon thousands of low paid people who are actually the "cannon fodder" denied basic rights. I came across a swathe of them recently - people employed on fixed term contracts for five or more years. As you will be aware, people in the "real world" on fixed term contracts acrrue the same employment rights as other employees. These people were denied redundancy payments. They were denied redeployment even though other suitable jobs were available. And as Crown Servants are not employees they are denied the right to challenge this in an employment tribunal. All because they were Crown Servants. If the government expects to have any credibility on employment law issues, it must first apply the same rights to its own workers. Employing "disposable staff" on supposedly fixed term contarcts with next to no rights has become the norm in most government departments, and it is an unacceptable and unjustifiable denial of basic rights. The DWP alone employs thousands of people in this way. It is not the small number of people involved in alleged misconduct which is the most worrying aspect - albeit an issue. It is the 99% who have done nothing wrong but try to support their families, and who often do not even realise that they are not employees and have significantly fewer rights than their next door neighbour when it comes to being "at risk". Imagine working for an employer for years, paying into your pension etc., etc., and along they come and say "Bye - you have no right to your job and no right to employment, and by the way, there's no redundancy money either".

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

This policy was adopted by a number of different companies, including one large investment bank I was working for at the time as an agency temp as well, the temps were all paid through the agencies and not the companies, those companies like to outsource everything and the last thing they would do is take the temp payroll in-house. In my case, I was using an umbrella company, but only because a friend of mine recommended it as a tax-efficient vehicle. I could probably have stayed more than 52 weeks in those circumstances as I was 'officially' 'employed' by a company in Gibraltar (that's what my payslip said), but I left after 5 or 6 months to go to Spain.

They were all very concerned about temps acquiring employment rights at the time (2004). Surprisingly, not all companies agreed to this type of arrangement, some didn't want limited companies and some didn't want umbrella companies to be used. :confused2:

Well I can't explain it. But sense and employers is not always something I put in the same sentence - even the big ones!

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

Yes. What I am concerned about is the literally thousands upon thousands of low paid people who are actually the "cannon fodder" denied basic rights. I came across a swathe of them recently - people employed on fixed term contracts for five or more years. As you will be aware, people in the "real world" on fixed term contracts acrrue the same employment rights as other employees. These people were denied redundancy payments. They were denied redeployment even though other suitable jobs were available. And as Crown Servants are not employees they are denied the right to challenge this in an employment tribunal. All because they were Crown Servants. If the government expects to have any credibility on employment law issues, it must first apply the same rights to its own workers. Employing "disposable staff" on supposedly fixed term contarcts with next to no rights has become the norm in most government departments, and it is an unacceptable and unjustifiable denial of basic rights. The DWP alone employs thousands of people in this way. It is not the small number of people involved in alleged misconduct which is the most worrying aspect - albeit an issue. It is the 99% who have done nothing wrong but try to support their families, and who often do not even realise that they are not employees and have significantly fewer rights than their next door neighbour when it comes to being "at risk". Imagine working for an employer for years, paying into your pension etc., etc., and along they come and say "Bye - you have no right to your job and no right to employment, and by the way, there's no redundancy money either".

The problem is, Eloise, government departments use a lot of agency staff and try to bluff their way out of compliance with Employment Law and basic employment rights. One scam they use is Crown Immunity. That has been narrowed-down over the passage of time and it only applies in limited circumstances these days. I have a gut-feeling this practice will, as it always does, backfire on the government when a test case is brought under Human Rights legislation, strange as this may sound.

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

The problem is, Eloise, government departments use a lot of agency staff and try to bluff their way out of compliance with Employment Law and basic employment rights. One scam they use is Crown Immunity. That has been narrowed-down over the passage of time and it only applies in limited circumstances these days. I have a gut-feeling this practice will, as it always does, backfire on the government when a test case is brought under Human Rights legislation, strange as this may sound.

I agree. But these were not agency staff. We are talking about directly employed people. As I said, I can see a case for a different sort of employment relationship for the Police and Armed Forces - maybe even for Sir Humphries.... But that should still be based on having the same basic rights even if they are exercised differently. But ordinary workers, not in a uniformed service, not privy to state secrets, that is a different matter.

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for unauthorised absence

I agree. But these were not agency staff. We are talking about directly employed people. As I said, I can see a case for a different sort of employment relationship for the Police and Armed Forces - maybe even for Sir Humphries.... But that should still be based on having the same basic rights even if they are exercised differently. But ordinary workers, not in a uniformed service, not privy to state secrets, that is a different matter.

I agree with you entirely, Eloise. Like I said in an earlier post, I have a gut-feeling this anomaly will be corrected by a test case under Human Rights legislation. The government tend to suffer from severe Cranio-Rectal Obstruction and tend to delude themselves they are invincible and untouchable. They always find out the hard way that the opposite applies.