Diary
Home
Career
Pesticide
Environment
Kevin Petters
After a couple of years of being shouted at, sworn at, belittled, bullied, harrased and finally physically threatened at Llys y Pentre, Brynhyfred, I reluctantly took the advice of my colleagues, (received over the previous 3 years, some had already left FHA by then, high turnover)
I instigated a Grievance Procedure against Kevin Petters.
I was fairly confident of having a result, because besides the four caretakers watching KP go berserk, there were also visitors to the site and some tenants were present.
I was interviewed by personnel who explained the procedure and said that there was no
need to visit the site residents, to get witness statements.
I then handed in, on 26th Oct 2004, my grievance letter.
I next received a letter from Personnel regarding delay due to half term.
The next letter I received (on 12th Nov 04), stated, that I missed a meeting on 4 Nov 04, because the Letter had been sent to the wrong address! ( I am their resident caretaker)
They also ask if I could contact them to arrange a meeting.
I am off sick with stress, so did rush not contact them..
NEXT
I get a letter on 2 Dec 07 saying I did not attend the meeting arranged, and oh!
I am guilty.
I realised then that the undelivered recorded letter card (Number) I had, may have been a letter notifying me, of the meeting.
I did not have transport, the previous week, when I saw it. When I went to get it to check, it had been returned. Seven days were up. So I will never know the content.
But surely the reason, you use the recorded delivery system is to prove the letter was received. So you should allow more than seven days to make sure it is.
If it was the letter I think it was, they must have felt very foolish when it arrived back after the meeting.
I obviously had to appeal, so I appealed immediately.
I then received a letter on 10Dec 04 arranging a meeting with Phil Dennis on the 20th Dec. I attended on my own, and related all the facts.
As it was nearly Christmas, I agreed that his findings would not be completed until the New year. He was surprised that I had signed statements from two of the four witnesses.
But I was surprised, that he did not see any reason to interview the three original witnesses again, only DJ who for some reason was not interviewed originally.
I left the meeting feeling uneasy. It spoilt my Christmas. So on New years day I delivered two copies of the same letter by person to the office. One to P Dennis and one to Personnel.
In the meantime, Jeff phoned and asked if I would visit him.
When I arrived he was quite distressed, He had received a statement of his interview with ST which Phil Dennis had asked him to read and sign.
"It was completely out of context, I had to phone PD and tell him to alter 8 lines.
eg ST, Do you find KP threatening? No, but then I am as big as him, Brian is half his size.
In the statement they just put "No", and omitted the rest!
and it was the same throughout the statement."
It was what I had expected, PD did not question KR and Wayne who were my main concern.
Because, they are indebted to KP for being employed with FHA.
To quote JB ( many witnesses) "KP got them into FHA, through the back door..........."
I naively hoped, that PD would have grilled them. eg...
" You do realise, that this outburst by KP that day,
was in the middle of Llys y Pentre,
with many witnesses,
so let's have the truth, or you may be leaving FHA"
He did not,
I then waited for JUSTICE
What a hope.
I had thought of writing to PD expressing my disgust, I then thought ,what is the point.
I then had the prospect, to go back to working under KP.
But now I was mentally steeled for him. OH a month later in a team meeting the Chief Exec arrives to present KP with a commendation for bravery.
This image is from "In House" will I be got for copyright?
of bullying me,
how embarrasing it would have
been for FHA.
Surely, this cannot be the same KP
who reported me, (half his size, etc,etc) a year later
for threatening him.?
That story will be next week.
Whatever form they may take, grievance procedures are intended to allow companies to hear and resolve complaints in a timely and cost effective manner, before they result in litigation. Knowing that formal procedures are available often encourages employees to raise concerns or question company policies before major problems develop. It also tends to makes managers less likely to ignore problems, because they know that upper management may become involved through the grievance process. In union settings, grievance procedures help protect employees against arbitrary decisions of management regarding discipline, discharge, promotions, or benefits. They also provide labor unions and employers with a formal process for enforcing the provisions of their contracts.
Although having grievance procedures in place is important in both unionized and non-unionized settings, companies must support their written policies with consistent actions if they hope to maintain good employee relations. "To make the grievance procedure work, management and the union have to approach it with the attitude that it serves the mutual interests of management, employees, and the union," Scarpello, Ledvinka, and Bergmann wrote. "An effective grievance procedure helps management discover and correct problems in operations before they cause serious trouble. It provides a vehicle through which employees and the union can communicate their concerns to upper management."
For grievance procedures to be effective, both parties should view them as a positive force that facilitates the open discussion of issues. In some cases, the settling of grievances becomes a sort of scorecard that reinforces an "us versus them" mentality between labor and management. In other cases, employees are hesitant to use the grievance process out of fear of recrimination. Some studies have shown that employees who raise grievances tend to have lower performance evaluations, promotion rates, and work attendance afterwards.
This suggests that some employers may retaliate against employees who raise complaints.
It is vital that a company's grievance procedures include steps to prevent a backlash against those who choose to use them.