Right to a job description

[Presonus]

Good afternoon everyone

You've helped me greatly before, I hope you can again on a related but new matter


Following an unfair disciplinary and botched investigation, matters against me relating a previous work issue were dropped and I was asked to move team as an outcome (because my relations with the manager were deemed irrecoverable) - this was technically a promotion as the new team are more senior, and paid more. At the time I was shown a job spec of my new roles and duties but I haven't been given a copy.


Throughout the year I've found myself largely excluded by the team, and I've withdrawn and I haven't gelled, I can deal with this seperately but the biggest issue is i haven't actually been put on the salary band of my colleagues, though when 've spoken with my manager he says I can't be put in parity with the others and that I am a junior.

Now this is news to me, as I was taken on as a consultant and they did take checks to make sure I was suitably qualified at the time.

My manager has since tried equatiny my responsibilities with peopple on the team, though the terms and conditions disparity is significant - over 10k, and they get a 10% bonus, where I get nothing. So for the last few months i've basically done the same work, but what I've been doing in the meantime is trying to get clarity from my manager what the situation is in terms of progressing to full analyst status, i always get different responses 'you are a junior so you shouldnt be as involved' (which is fine) but we recently lost a member of the team and i have been asked to fill their shoes, so I've asked again why I can't be considered a full analyst, since my roles and responsibilities have no difference than that with my colleagues. This has again been denied, and told I should treat it as a learning opportunity.


I'm aware people can be paid differently, but before I took this different role I did ask HR what the policy was with doing the same role on a completely different band, and they told me they would obviously allow a wage difference, but not a band difference if the duties were the same.

So in that sense I'm happy to be a junior if I'm being a junior

but if im replacing an analyst, I would like to be on an analyst banding - so I've gone to HR to state I have eben working a full analyst roles, and to be fair the response was sympathetic but say it's for the manager to sort.


I have then gone to my manager and sought documentation of what my roles and responsibilities actually are. Neither HR nor my manager have provided this (HR say managers keep these records, my manager has offered to 'draw something up' but does not have anything). As a result of this, i've kept working but I've backstepped and i've only done core bits which people have noticed, because now the team is understaffed.

This has come to a head because my manager has suddenly been replaced, and I'm now been asked to attend a return to work meeting (I have been off sick with stress over this) - the new manager refuses to confirm if the meeting is formal one but has indicated he isn't happy with my recent step back and that I am paid to be one of the team, so he wants me to come back to work.


My question to you guys is - in terms of the company, which is a large corporation - the junior role doesn' actually exist. In fact according to HR I am still in my old role (this took them by surprise).

I want to defend myself and say I am happy to do my responsibilities, but if I am a junior, you need to outline what these responsibilities actualy are

and the same with the latter, if you want me to replace a full analyst (i.e not junior) you need to outline with these responsibiltiies are (and I will ask to be placed on parity in terms of contract with the others)

My concern is, and this seems like a really dumb question - do I have a legal right to know what my job is? I've been asking for a job spec, role description, copy of the contract or anything that outlines the expectations of me in my role and nobody will provide it.

Ive a feeling i'm going to be asked why I'm not performing on par with my colleagues, the answer to this is 'everything im told indicates i shouldn't be, as that isnt my role' but nobody can actually give me something that I can look at to see if Im doing my job properly or not.

(and yes I am searching for a better employer haha, but this will take time due to the industry and time of year)

[ULA]

A simple short answer that this is not legal right that an employer has to provide you with a job description. That said I would always advise that good practice would be to have a job descriptions in place for each role in the business.

[Presonus]

Thanks, sorry I have put this in the wrong section.


How does one go about resolving a dispute where a manager would say these are your responsibilities, but it actually isn't your job because the same or previous managers have said it isn't?

For example, there are ssome responsibilities i can't actually do due to system access constraints - i can't get permissions because I'm not formally on the team, but I am expected to do them and I am getting by by asking someone if they have spare time so they can do it on my behalf.

Bare in mind, management have very little situational awareness of its staff, so in cases like mine they just want to me to 'just do what other people do' and take little interest in whether it's possible etc.

[ULA]

New managers do come in with ideas of what they want people to do as part of their job and even with a job description there always tends to be a catch-all phrase of "other such duties as are required by management to achieve the job".

If there are tasks you are being asked to perform and you cannot because "of access constraints" then you need to let your manager know, which a return to work meeting would be an ideal opportunity to do this.

[Presonus]

Yeah thats the problem, I don;t want to come across as uncooperative, but there is a job description for my colleagues, but i am told (when asking for parity with my colleagues) that i am not supposed to be doing their duties

when i ask for things to do, i am told i should be doing their duties

I can't see how a 'well which is it' conversation is unreasonable, but it may be?

[ULA]

Your manager is new, you have been off sick and have a return to work meeting and you do not have clarity about the duties you are being asked to perform given the access to systems. If you approach is non-confrontationally then it can be a reasonable discussion to have.

[Presonus]

Hi ULA

I appreciate the time so here, please find an update.

So I asked whether the meeting was a formal one or not and got no firm answer, so I went to the meeting as expected, expecting a typical return to work interview.

It started out that way, but I actually got ambushed (the manager invited two hr people) in half way through who suspended me on some very strange allegations.

Apparently, I have discriminated against someone, or bullied them - but they cannot give me details. I do not get along with someone in my team, but I am not aware of anything that would constitude discrimination or bullying. They tend to completely ignore me so I am not aware of any direct confrtontations. I have asked for clarification on this, but they say to protect the employee - all I am allowed to know is that I have bullied someone. Allegedly.

The second point of suspension is even more bizarre - the company claims I run a side-hustle without authorisation. Now I do run a side hustle, and it's all above board, I've asked managers permission (all of them), and I've filled out the declaration of conflict of interest forms, however they only ask about directorships, and my side hustle ceased to be a ltd company when i put it to one side to do my current job, so it's pocket money affair and not registered really in any way except a tax return. I am not apparently allowed a copy of this declaration to review as I wanted to check if I had missed something, but I am pretty certain it is explicit about directorships because I've gont through this process every year for five years or so. When I asked for a reference copy as the suspension meeting was wrapping up I was told they couldn't do that.

Now this is interesting, because an ex-manager actually took an involved part in my side hustle, in fact I have a photo of him and his entire family (him, wife, son) posing outside my little office wearing my side hustle branded beanie hats. There is also a seperate previous manager who has left me a google review after using my services.

I am told though, because this manager has left the business and is more than a year ago, that I should not include this or anything prior to 2024 as evidence, even circumstantial. Personally I think it's relevent because even if it turns out it should have been in writing, this feels like a minor infraction, not a major policy breach since it can't be argued that I wasn't transparent (even my current manager has asked me for a quote).

Whilst I appreciate these photos don't show I got permission in writing I thought circumstantially they would make any claim of not declaring look silly - also, if a declaration is mandatory, should this not be explained? It isn't explained in the conflict of interest form, which is why I asked for a copy so I could point it out.

Bear in mind this firm is a large 80k+ employee organisation, so it's not a case of small business has a grudge against employee jobbie.

[Presonus]

Just for completeness here's my (previous) manager and family parading my apparel in front of my little workshop.

He had an admin account on my sidegig website, and posted it up on the internet himself as part of helping promote (which he did for a while)

I know what I'm saying sounds a bit bizarre but it's 'appenin.

[ULA]

For some explanation which may help you understand the process, suspension is normally used when an allegation of serious or gross misconduct is being investigated but not established i.e. they do not know for certain and want to find out the full fact/s first and from which a decision will then be made as to whether to carry out any disciplinary action. In your case they have given you a brief explanation of what those allegations are.

As part of the process you may be asked to attend a meeting for which you should be provided notice and time to prepare given that you should have already been informed of the reasons for the suspension, in your case there is bullying a colleague and running a side-hustle without authorisation. The purpose of the meeting is for you to answer any questions that the investigator may have and respond to the allegations that have been made. This quite often happens towards the end of the investigation once for example other interviews with work relevant work colleagues have taken place or any documentation related to the allegations have been reviewed. You may even be asked to attend more than one interview.

The outcome of the investigation and period of suspension has a couple of options, either the investigation does not find that the allegations are upheld and you can return to work or, there is sufficient evidence for the company to consider some form of disciplinary action and you will be asked to attend a disciplinary meeting.

The correct procedure should be that at the time of your suspension or very soon after you should be given written confirmation that you have been suspended that includes:

• the reasons for the suspension and how long it is expected to last
• your rights and obligations during the suspension. For example, that you should be contactable during normal working hours
• a point of contact (such as a manager or HR) and their contact details for you during the suspension
• that the purpose of suspension is to investigate and is not an assumption of guilt
• It should also be confirmed that you receive your full pay and benefits during a period of suspension, unless there is a clear contractual right for your employer to suspend without pay or benefits.

This period of suspension should be kept as brief as possible and your employer should keep you regularly updated about the suspension.

In terms of the allegation of bullying you are likely to find out more of what this could be when either you get confirmation of the suspension or by the questions you are asked at your meeting with the investigating officer.

Regarding the second job, I would suggest that you check your contract of employment and /or company policy documents on this subject to make sure you have complied fully with any process for declaring another job outside of your work with your current employer. The fact that managers were involved in or left a Google review on your side hustle is anecdotal as a fact that senior members of staff knew about your second job but not a defence to the potential allegation there may be on this issue.

When you say it ceased to be Ltd company did you dissolve the company and does it show this at Companies House?

[Presonus]

Yeah it does, it is fully dissolved - I continued to declare it until it was dissolved because the form literally said to declare directorships, however whilst I do actually do some of this side hustle, it's actually in a family members name- they take the money, declare the earnings on a tax return and I just contribute to the work effort sometimes (this person is widowed so we just more or less do it to give them a bit of their own wage)

so really in a technical sense im volunteering in a very crude way

I am looking through my contract/or the particulars I received when i joined the company, I am also looking through my handbook, I cannot find anything.

[ULA]

The clause is often referred to as Devotion of Time and may have wording similar to "You will devote the whole of your time and attention during your working hours to xxx. You will not undertake any other employment at any time whilst you are employed by xxx whether in or outside business hours without the prior written permission of xxxx."

Declaring directorships maybe another requirement from your employer and if you dissolved the company then that will be on record at Companies House and I presume you are not a director in the family members business not that they have taken it over? In which case can prove no directorships.

[Presonus]

Thanks for the reply, I have found it - not word perfect but in a nutshell 'you must obtain written permission to undertake voluntary or work elsewhere and you may face disciplinary action in the case that you have not told your manager about such undertakings'


So from the first part it looks like in the strictest interpretation I may have needed to get their feedback in writing. Now, to be fair - it's so long ago i genuinely might have asked in writing - can't remember if it was verbal or not (it could have been teams, email or chat in all fairness - can't check), but as I did this business before I even started in my employment i even asked if would be ok in my initial job interview five years ago, and my managers throughout my employment has always chatted to me freely about it and asked me for quotes for their cars etc, none of the six managers I've had in my time here have actually come back and said 'we're doing this wrong' (I'm not saying it is there responsibility, I'm just highlighting that they didn't seem to realise it was a requirement either when we've had these chats). Whenever I've changed manager after one moves on I always introduce myself and ask in our first few conversations if it's going to be a problem. Most take an interest, and some have actually helped out (one in fact used to admin our social media page as he was quite experienced in it).

So yeah, possibly a sticky wicket because I've received a request to answer the question whether I had written permission or not, and I don't know. I have asked if there is a specific form for this, but I haven't gotten an answer. I have also been asked why I haven't added this to my annual conflict of interest declaration.

Now, the conflict of interest declaration is simple but complicated, my hobby company WAS a limited company initially, as it used to be my fuill time job, it shrank and shrank and eventually it was a lot of admin and my widowed mum was out of a job, so we crashed it, built up again much smaller, and I just run it to earn her a wage really (which allows me to keep my full time job wage to myself) - not to sound selfish but we run it really for her benefit, and she is registered for self assessment obviously. Whilst it operated as a limited company, I declared it on the conflict of interest form, however when it was dissolved, I stopped because I beleived I was no longer a director or a person with any significant control.


From my vague recollection i think it was in QA format so like:
1) have you any family, friends working within the business?
2) do you have any directorships?
3) Do you, or your spouse have any control or investment in competing businesses etc?

If there had been a question directly relatable, such as 4) are you employed, or benefitting from undertaking work of any nature outside the organisation? - then it would be a clear breach but I usually take my time with them because I did get one returned to me years ago because I resttarted the form and carried on after the place i'd left off - in this case i just got a friendly email along the lines of 'rejected your form, don;t forget person xxx!' and that was that.

I have been refused access to see my conflict of interest form submissions, however from recollection, because these forms are quite a pain to fill in, my beleif is from a company/work point of view they only ask about declaring if you have control of company, shares in competing companies or directorships.

However, without sighting the form (which I filled in nearly a year ago) I can't actually see why they think it should have been declared, but my current understanding is that when I worked through the form none of the fields or questions to fill in indicated that the current arrangement was declarable. I appreciate this may seem vague but I literally am working from recollection, I certainly wouldnt have failed to declare if if anything indicated it should have been.

Sorry, kinda just repeated myself (stressed lol) - what I'm saying is, I simply approached it in an 'answer the question lay before you' way so the only way i can see something not being declared is if it wasn't clear to me at the time. But the directorsip I thought, given the dissolution was quite clear.


I have solicitor to see if they can review the contract clause , but any opinions or advice welcome please

[Presonus]

Unfortunately I don't seem to be having much luck with the investigation team - whilst they have ignored 3 emails asking for sight of the conflict of interrest form, he hasn't acknowledhed or replied but I have received an email frim him inviting me to a further interview.

So it looks like they've gone to radio silence mode, and are relying on me not having sight of the document before answering why I didn't fill it in properly for some reason.

I think I did fill it in properly, but obviously they disagree. How does one not incriminate themselves by being forced to justify a historic act that with some apparent error they don't even know they did so couldn't explain it anyway?

[ULA]

Given you now have a solicitor involved, then I will defer to their experience, as they will presumably be given sight of the clause in its entirety.

It may well be that the investigating officer brings the information to the meeting. If not then you may have to consider making a Subject Access Request (SAR).

[Presonus]

Hi

way ahead of you - subject access declaration was sent immediately after the meeting, unfortunately this won't be quick and probably won't get me the data in time (and when it comes it'll be hard to read due to redactions etc) but it will be better than nothing.

thw solicitor I haven't enlisted in a full capacity, more so just to give an opinion on that clause - however we did have our first meeting today, and they have looked at my situation, the fact previous managers have not only approved, but actually contributed to the business (and actually used to work in my personal office alongside me) so she's said effectively this is a bit of a stupid argument to make and should be easily covered by custom and practice, and this covers the conflict of interest aspect too.

So if I can trust my solicitor with this, this leaves the discrimonation/bullying claim - now the investigator manager did email me today (mostly to tell me off, she sent me an email invite a few days to a meeting next wednesday, which I acknowledged by return reply the same day (I have received your email and will attend etc) - though she wanted me to use the microsoft outlook calender response thing, so when she didn't get the calender acceptance, she ignored my hand written one and sent me a bit of a nasty email accusing me of not co-operating with process and reminding me of the terms of suspension and threatening to cut my salary. So i've just sent her a pretty nice email back letting her know we don't all use microsoft outlook calenders, and that my previous confirmation should suffice, and that i didn't intend to sit at the desk all day so I can reply if I get an email right then and there but she can ask me any questions if she is unsure about any appointments/meetings etc.

Can't really do any better than that.

I thought it was a bit rough considering it's just taken her 4 days to acknowledge my request. No point here, just venting my frustration.

So yeah - since the solicitor doesn't seem particularly concerned about the business stuff, this leaves the harassment. Now, in the email telling me off from earlier, she did drop a bit of information - because on the day of the investigation I was asked 'have you ever acted inappropriately to members of your team' (for which I couldn't recall. In her email she says 'she will not be able to provide any further details with regards to your request for information about allegations of acting inappropriately with regards to discussing your role with your team members' - not word perfect, but this gives us a clue.

You see, I have had a few disputes with my team - they want me to do more work, because we lost a team member to a secondment. I didn't want to pick up the reigns until I get clarity on my position from my manager (with requests being well documented) as my role hadn't been defined and I had received mixed messages from him (sometimes he said i could do everything, but then he actually denied approval requests for access to tools to enable me to do the job fully). Ultimately as of today I don't have permissions to do the job fully.

So I defended myself, by stating in the managers abscence I was happy to contunue as is, until I have clarity on what my working remit/authorisations are (bear in mind I have been disciplined previously for working beyond my remit) - so I am VERY cautious about putting my disciplinary record at risk and yeah, I do sort of want to stand firm and make sure I'm only doing what I should be.

So I think it boils down to whether telling your colleagues (not managers, colleagues) that you don't want to do as they tell you is a sackable offence.

Relaxing a bit now, because unless they really have something on me, that they don't want to tell me, and is something really bad and yet i can't think what it could be - then it looks like their arguments a bit weak.