Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Possible Harassment

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:25 pm

Such is the nature of HR...


Image
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9330
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby Millbrook2 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:34 pm

Hairyloon wrote:Such is the nature of HR...


Image


Dickhead.

This is too important for your stupidity.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby Millbrook2 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:51 pm

Legaleye wrote:
Millbrook2 wrote:
Legaleye wrote:Thanks dnm.
I actually joined the pension scheme in 1986, but as you rightly say I retired under the 2006 changes, I'll make a few discrete enquiries via friends who are still operational.
There is one thing which puzzles me, that is in 2013 when I spoke on the phone with the HR advisor she said if I made any money I could loose the higher tier of my pension, thereby admitting she was trying to catch me out with her questions which I refused to answer, my understanding of the scheme is that I can earn money which won't affect my right to an ill health pension, that is because the higher tier is awarded only if you are not capable of regular employment.

Legaleye


I'm not wishing to be antagonistic but she was not trying to catch you out. She was doing her job and administering the scheme. I was about to advise contacting the union - it's good advice.

I appreciate your advice Millbrook2 but I think we'll have to agree to disagree, I believe in 2013 she asked the questions I refused to answer to catch me out, there are ways to conduct your business and there are ways to conduct your business, I don't like her way, I think it is underhanded.
I have found out this evening that when I retired in 2010 the then HR manager left, she thought she would step into his shoes, unfortunately they made an operational officer HR manager, he had no HR qualifications, she has a chip on her shoulder, I could be one of those in the firing line. Legaleye


You have a very serious problem with this attitude which I sincerely hope does not come back to bite you. Either you suffer from paranoia or there is more to this because you are barking up the wrong tree with harassment/ claims of trying to be caught out etc. I have also checked and many public sector pensions allow for reassessment of ill health type retirements.

I'll tell you what I would do if I was in HR (as an ex HR Director) and it was a requirement of the pension scheme to check if pensioners of your type were in employment. I would add that it may not be a requirement of the scheme but it could be allowable under the scheme.

I would simply write you a letter asking you to fill the forms in and giving you notice that if they were not returned in 14 days your pension would be stopped - at least the part that is affected by other employment. I would not care whether I was allowed to do it or not but I would not be messed about and I'd let you deal with the consequences. Why, because I would assume you had something to hide.

Inexperienced as she is it may be dropped again but believe me if they are allowed to have these forms filled in and decide to follow it through you will lose one way or another



I can't speak for how she did it, nor her background but it sounds to me like you have been earning and don't want to reveal it. If you haven't then it's a minor inconveniece. My bluntness is intended to help because you are seriously on the wrong track here.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:00 am

And the fact that you don't want to give the answers does not make this harassment. Making that allegation is unlikely to go down well, and you have been warned repeatedly of the possible consequences.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18653
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby Legaleye » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:52 am

Thank you

Legaleye
Legaleye
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:23 pm

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:10 am

Millbrook2 wrote:I'll tell you what I would do if I was in HR (as an ex HR Director) and it was a requirement of the pension scheme to check if pensioners of your type were in employment. I would add that it may not be a requirement of the scheme but it could be allowable under the scheme.

I would simply write you a letter asking you to fill the forms in and giving you notice that if they were not returned in 14 days your pension would be stopped - at least the part that is affected by other employment. I would not care whether I was allowed to do it or not but I would not be messed about and I'd let you deal with the consequences. Why, because I would assume you had something to hide.


Inexperienced as she is it may be dropped again but believe me if they are allowed to have these forms filled in and decide to follow it through you will lose one way or another


You have explained so much in this one post about HR departments that I wonder if you have not breached some professional obligation somewhere. Who are you to disregard whether you are allowed to do something before doing it? Who are you who is never to be 'messed about' while being so clearly willing to mess others about? And all because of your unproven assumption. One of the functions of HR used to be, unless I was being conned, to make sure that it's parent organisation complied with employment law. Your proposed course of action, and it's stated reasons, are nothing more than the most contemptible bullying. They certainly give support to the idea that the OP's alleged paranoia may actually be an accurate assessment of the situation.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby Legaleye » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:40 pm

Thank you

Legaleye
Legaleye
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:23 pm

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby Millbrook2 » Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:11 am

shootist wrote:
Millbrook2 wrote:I'll tell you what I would do if I was in HR (as an ex HR Director) and it was a requirement of the pension scheme to check if pensioners of your type were in employment. I would add that it may not be a requirement of the scheme but it could be allowable under the scheme.

I would simply write you a letter asking you to fill the forms in and giving you notice that if they were not returned in 14 days your pension would be stopped - at least the part that is affected by other employment. I would not care whether I was allowed to do it or not but I would not be messed about and I'd let you deal with the consequences. Why, because I would assume you had something to hide.


Inexperienced as she is it may be dropped again but believe me if they are allowed to have these forms filled in and decide to follow it through you will lose one way or another


You have explained so much in this one post about HR departments that I wonder if you have not breached some professional obligation somewhere. Who are you to disregard whether you are allowed to do something before doing it? Who are you who is never to be 'messed about' while being so clearly willing to mess others about? And all because of your unproven assumption. One of the functions of HR used to be, unless I was being conned, to make sure that it's parent organisation complied with employment law. Your proposed course of action, and it's stated reasons, are nothing more than the most contemptible bullying. They certainly give support to the idea that the OP's alleged paranoia may actually be an accurate assessment of the situation.


There are a number of professional obligations in HR. One is as you describe regarding employment law. Another is to ensure employees are treated fairly. Another is to administer various aspects of the employee/employer contract. In doing the latter the employee as well as the employer has various obligations. If an employee refuses to be bound by those obligations then the HR duty also includes protecting the employer.

If an employee is in receipt of a pension payment conditional on not being able to work and the scheme allows the employer to ask for forms to be completed to ensure that the payment continues HR has a right and duty to administer that. Failure on the part of the ex employee to fullfil that obligation raises the possibility of a fraud on the scheme.

Faced with a refusal to complete the forms the employer has a decision to make. Do they ignore the fact or take action to ensure the integrity of the scheme.

Once the employer has tried all reasonable means to administer the scheme requirements and been knocked back then they apply the sanction which would come into effect if the payment was not due to be paid. There is usually an imbalance of power in these circumstances and the employer has the power in this case to stop the payments. Yes I would use it because those payments are coming from existing scheme members and/or the public purse and they have a right to expect that the employer will not turn a blind eye to possible frauds.

You have picked up on the fact that I would stop the additional payment regardless of the explicit authority to do so and believe this to be bullying. In my time I broke company rules a number of times to help out employees. I always made sure it was documented in a way where 'the buck stopped with me' if it was later queried, such as being picked up by audit.

Seniority means you are paid to make difficult decisions. If all reasonable efforts are made to get forms filled in as required or allowed by the scheme and an employee refuses to do so then you ask yourself why. Fraud on the scheme is one answer, laziness is another. Whatever the reason it cannot be ignored.

I find it strange when folks respond like you do with the expectation that the employer just ignores unreasonable behaviour. I was trying to warn the OP that there is a very real possibility of a sanction here. I didn't mention the possibility of action for fraud because most employers would seek a repayment rather than involve the police but I can't be the only person who wondered if the underlying issue was that the OP did have some other work.

Your assessment of my response is strangely twisted, I hope this answer helps.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby shootist » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:44 pm

Millbrook2 wrote:Once the employer has tried all reasonable means to administer the scheme requirements and been knocked back then they...


Try some unreasonable means if your posts are anything to judge by.

Millbrook2 wrote:You have picked up on the fact that I would stop the additional payment regardless of the explicit authority to do so and believe this to be bullying. In my time I broke company rules a number of times to help out employees. I always made sure it was documented in a way where 'the buck stopped with me' if it was later queried, such as being picked up by audit.


OK, so you broke company rules to... what the hell, it doesn't matter what for, you are clearly stating that you broke company rules on a number of occasions, and that doing so justify breaking company rules whenever you feel like it. As an ex something in HR you must surely have some idea how that would play back in an industrial tribunal, or in court. How do you think your job interview would have gone if you had come out and told the interviewers that you were willing to break rules on employment law and Human Rights if you (not they) felt it convenient? I know what I think about such a laissez-faire attitude towards others, both employers and employees.

Millbrook2 wrote:Seniority means you are paid to make difficult decisions.


Like whether or not to risk breaking the law, bankrupting your employers due to vicarious liability for your actions?

Millbrook2 wrote: If all reasonable efforts are made to get forms filled in as required or allowed by the scheme and an employee refuses to do so then you ask yourself why. Fraud on the scheme is one answer, laziness is another. Whatever the reason it cannot be ignored.


You forgot a few more reasons. That your efforts are in fact unreasonable, possibly unlawful (quite possible if the attitude is anything like that you have posted.) Blackmail on the part of HR (See previous brackets), ignorance of law and common decency on the part of HR. It seems possible that those things might be being ignored by someone.

Millbrook2 wrote:I find it strange when folks respond like you do with the expectation that the employer just ignores unreasonable behaviour.


Who's unreasonable behaviour are you suggesting might be ignored, the employee or the employer. You posts to date make that far from clear.

Millbrook2 wrote: I was trying to warn the OP that there is a very real possibility of a sanction here. I didn't mention the possibility of action for fraud because most employers would seek a repayment rather than involve the police...


Because the police might need to find some proof. Could be inconvenient. It can be a useful threat, though, to someone who is feeling vulnerable and persecuted, as I'm sure you know.

Millbrook2 wrote: but I can't be the only person who wondered if the underlying issue was that the OP did have some other work.
WONDERING! IF!

Millbrook2 wrote:Your assessment of my response is strangely twisted, I hope this answer helps.


It helps more than you might know. If it's twisted to expect people who have power to use it responsibly, in accordance with rules that are set, and not abuse it out of personal pique, then OK, I'm twisted. But I hope that I am not dishonest, bullying, immoral, or just plain mean. Neither would I hold up such failings as virtues.

Edit to add. If the employer's representative can feel free to braks the rules, why isn't the same courtesy extended towards the employer?
Last edited by shootist on Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Possible Harassment

Postby shootist » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:50 pm

To the OP. Do not assume that someone here seems to support certain actions of your ex employers officials that they are possessed of the same attitude towards the law. As others have pointed out, get some advice. I would have thought the FBU would have been on this like a rash, but of not, get some other advice. Soon. Do not play dangerous games with your pension looking at law that is likely to be irrelevant, at least not until after the fate of your pension have been finalised.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torts - Negligence, Defamation and others

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron