It
may be only a minor ripple in the tsunami of bad news the COVID-19 pandemic has
brought and continues to bring us, but I’m back to being gainfully unemployed
after SITEL, the hideous capitalist behemoth that subcontracted me to work for
Sotheby’s these past 20 months, decided to dispense with my services, thus ending
my cushy little furlough and sent me scuttling back off to the Labour Exchange
to claim National Assistance. Unlike last time, I’m getting Jobseekers
Allowance rather than Universal Credit. It isn’t a fortune, but I’ll not need
to start busking in the Metro just yet.
There’ll
be much more of an expose into SITEL’s squalid employment practises later on,
but suffice to say, while I’m more than proud to be a fully paid up member of
the Awkward Squad, my overall boss there is yet another example of the endless
conveyor belt of petty, intransigent, lying bullshitters I’ve had the
misfortune of being line managed by over the past four decades. Throughout that
time, I’ve never sought a single promotion that would have given me any kind of
instrumental power over colleagues who would have magically been transformed into
subordinates. In fact, I’ve endlessly questioned the motives of anyone who has
attempted to crawl up the ladder of executive career development, unless they
simply wanted a few more quid. I find it funny how people change when they get
a shot at leadership; I’ve seen numerous decent colleagues absolutely ruined by
the chance, or sometimes requirement, to lord it over their inferiors. Yes, we
could it say it shows more about them than us mere mortals, but the problem is
bosses, like coppers, are only there to make workers’ lives a misery, often by
insisting it’s their way or the highway. Considering all I’ve ever wanted to do
with my life is read books, listen to music, watch football, drink beer and
express my thoughts on paper, you’d think the rest of the world could have continued
to accommodate my needs and aspirations by continuing to furlough me until I’m
60 in another 4 years…
Getting
made redundant from Tyne Met College on April 1st, 2018 kept me
alive and allowed me to rediscover my love of people and sarcasm, by working
behind the bar at Tynemouth Cricket Club, as serving under the benevolent aegis
of wisecracking super cynic Steve “Fanta” Mordue was an absolute pleasure.
Sadly, it wasn’t enough money and that’s why I had to get a start at Sotheby’s.
As I’ve said many times, my colleagues at Sotheby’s, in my team at least, were
great, but the bosses, as ever, were the lowest rank of humanity, in particular
the overall head honcho, syntactic butcher Judith Motteshead, Hitler-haired
harridan Loren Nelson and malevolent bruiser Adele Clark. SITEL as an
organisation treats its employees like dirt on the bottom of their shoes and
the Quorum based bosses follow that dictum to the last degree. They don’t need
barely literate keyboard warriors on work time, grassing up fellow workers
because of their political beliefs. Laboratory rats have more rights and are
valued more than SITEL drones.
Remember
that blog on my experiences working on NHS 111? The reason I’m again resting is
that they sacked me, for Gross Professional Conduct no less, because I published
that, having been alerted to its existence by an interfering tout from outside
the organisation. Of course, I didn’t take their decision sitting down and
appealed against the judgement. All my working life I’ve been a union; NASUWT
when I was in schools, NATFHE and subsequently UCU when then merged with AUT
during my time in Further Education and, as soon as I joined the non-unionised
beast of SITEL, I filled out a CWU membership form. Seriously, these lads do
not fuck about; they’re like the RMT in shorts. The support I had before,
during and after my initial hearing and then the appeal was simply first class.
It had the SITEL top brass squirming in their seats, which I think can be
demonstrated by the 27 days it took SITEL to dismiss my appeal.
The
main substance of my appeal was not the existence of my blog; I fully accepted
my authorship of this piece, but as I shall demonstrate, the responsibility for
the actual existence of this piece rests exclusively with Adele Clark, whose
conduct towards me throughout this process was unsympathetic to the point of
personal vindictiveness that I maintain would be categorised as discrimination
under the terms of the Equality Act. If
she hadn’t been hellbent on grinding me underfoot, I’d never have written the
blog in the first place.
While
I enjoyed a productive and positive working relationship with Adele from my
appointment in October 2018, other people on the Sotheby’s team warned me of
Adele’s domineering and bullying attitude to those she had a grudge against.
From the start of 2020, I would say I have been forced to endure the full
extent of Adele’s ire. It really isn’t a pleasant experience. Unfortunately, as
SITEL is non-unionised and that most of the employees are fairly transient in
nature, workers are compelled to endure completely unacceptable working
conditions and oppressive line management in a culture where profit is the be
all and end all, while staff are expendable underlings.
Moving
to the explicit grounds for my appeal, nothing demonstrates Adele’s personally
vindictive attitude to me more precisely than her decision to redeploy me from
working from home in the Sotheby’s campaign, to return to SITEL to work on the
NHS 111 campaign. As everyone knows, I have suffered with anxiety and
depression for almost my entire adult life and take daily medication to combat
the worst effects of the two illnesses. The severity of both conditions varies
according to circumstances, with my levels of anxiety increasing exponentially
in 2020 since the COVID-19 pandemic. Without a doubt, the prevalence of my
mental health problems ensures I am covered by the Equality Act and this ought
to have been considered, in terms of a rigorous risk assessment, undertaken in
conjunction with an occupational health professional, before any
redeployment. I pointed this out to
Adele on Friday 3rd April when she called to break the news of the
change in my working circumstances, but she completely and utterly ignored my
worries that I explicitly referred to during this call, because she simply
doesn’t care about the mental health of any of her staff.
Having
been left with the choice between going sick, with only statutory sick pay of
£95 a week to sustain me, or returning to SITEL, I was financially compelled to
attend SITEL. Because of my anxiety, I was utterly unable to work effectively
and efficiently from SITEL, though I would have had absolutely no problems with
continuing my work for Sotheby’s from home. Adele knew and ignored this fact,
which is a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The first day I spent with NHS 111
was characterised by an extremely unpleasant incident when three members of the
NHS 111 staff, whose names I don’t know, engaged in an episode of physically
threatening and verbally abusive conduct towards me. As far as I know, this was
not recorded, nor was the replication of the confrontation on Wednesday 8th
April. Thankfully, I was furloughed from this date and so it did not seem to
matter at the time. It will take on a more significant aspect when we
inevitably end up at an Employment Tribunal.
At
this point, I ought to mention that my partner Laura received a letter from her
doctor on Friday 27th March instructing her to shield for 12 weeks.
On that date, I was working from home, so it was not an issue and we could
continue to live together. However, once it became clear I had been ordered to
return to work by Adele, Laura and I decided it was not safe to do so, bearing
in mind that she had seen the chaotic conditions at SITEL on Thursday 25th
March at close quarters, when she had arranged to collect my IT equipment in
order to enable me to work from home. Hence, on Monday 6th April, I
began living in another property we own, to allow Laura to shield and be
isolated.
Without
divulging her litany of health conditions, her immune system is compromised and
for me to return home each night would have been foolhardy. Obviously, I was
not happy about this and my anxiety as to how Laura would cope alone made my
anxiety again grow exponentially.
Therefore, on the evening of Monday 6th April, I wrote my
blog, as I had absolutely no other outlet for my frustrations and fears. I did
not want to burden Laura with my anxieties, and I was unable to discuss this
with Adele, who had compounded her contempt towards me by taking leave on the
very day I returned to SITEL, demonstrating her natural compassion and empathy.
If Adele had accepted the veracity of my misgivings and done anything about
this, I would not have written the blog. Consequently, all of this is her
fault.
As
stated earlier, I was furloughed on Wednesday 8th April. I recognise
that this is the point I ought to have taken the blog down, but because of the
immense relief afforded by the decision to take me out of the firing line, I
was not thinking coherently. Suffice to say that, by the time I was able to
reason logically, after I was able to return to live with Laura on Wednesday 15th
April, following a week of self-isolation made necessary by the time I’d spent
at SITEL, it had slipped my mind. Indeed, I did not think about it again until
Adele had my immediate line manager, the weak and feckless glorified tea boy Richard
Cook, call me on Friday 1st May; needless to say, I took the blog down
immediately after that phone call.
Having
outlined Adele’s ultimate responsibility for the rapid decline in my mental
health and the genesis of my blog, I shall now move on to the various abuses of
process committed by Adele, in relation to the disciplinary investigation she
has undertaken. It is my contention that, as she was materially involved in the
case, whether she accepts her responsibility for this state of affairs or not,
Adele should not have been appointed as the investigating manager or chair of
the disciplinary meeting, because of her involvement in the case from the
outset. A disinterested person, in the legal sense of the term, should have
overseen the whole process. Not only should Adele not have been the presiding
manager, she should not have made several errors in the process that show her
to be either incompetent in such a role, or to be personally vindictive to the
extent she has displayed clear discrimination against me, a vulnerable adult,
under the terms of the Equality Act.
The
first incident of an abuse of process is the email that Adele alleged alerted
her to the existence of my blog. She was evasive when questioned about this
email, to the extent of furtive obfuscation. Her scarcely credible claims
included the fact the email was sent anonymously and from a generic email host.
When she was then asked to either provide the email, or to confirm the address,
including provider, it was sent from, she refused. Despite repeated requests
for this, she has point blank refused to share the details. I question her
motives for this, to the extent that I suspected she was lying about the
existence of such an email. Now I have been provided with confirmation of its existence
and the dread hand of Northumbria Police in its composition, then she has a
reason to keep it secret, presumably as it incriminates the author… And we all
know who that is eh?
After
the disciplinary meeting adjourned on Wednesday 6th May, Adele then
subsequently emailed me Thursday 14th May requesting we reconvene
the meeting to discuss some further “evidence” she had discovered. As well as
being highly irregular conduct, she is not permitted to introduce further
material after the hearing. I would also state that the material she sought to
table was not written by me and had nothing to do with the case.
Finally,
the actual decision letter I received on Tuesday 19th May contained
no less than three abuses of process. Firstly, the letter was not accompanied
by the agreed version of notes from the disciplinary meeting, which the SITEL
disciplinary policy states ought to have been attached. At the time of writing,
I still do not have a copy of these minutes. Secondly, as she was advised during
the disciplinary hearing but chose to ignore, her reference to section 1.5 of
the SITEL Global Code of Conduct having been breached by me is both erroneous
and irrelevant, as the spirit of this document relates to work done on behalf
of SITEL, not independent of them as my blog was. Adele’s decision seems to
risibly suggest I ought to have submitted my blog, and presumably, by
implication, anything written by me for publication after Monday 15th
October 2018, for SITEL approval. This is a specious and illogical conclusion.
Finally,
and perhaps most damningly, in her response Adele does not make any reference
to the explanatory mitigation outlined by my CWU representative, Mark Hugall.
It appears, as I alluded to earlier, Adele entered this meeting with her mind
made up, which fits with her wholly irregular role as judge, jury and
executioner in this whole sorry episode.
In
conclusion, I respectfully asked SITEL to set the decision to dismiss me aside
and to allow me to begin again with SITEL, preferably working from home as part
of the Sotheby’s campaign, or furloughed if there is not the volume of work to
justify this. Being made redundant is understandable in the current state of
affairs but being sacked because of the vindictive malice of a bigoted, discriminatory
manager is not permissible under any circumstances.
The
appeal hearing was conducted by another SITEL manager, Simon Saunders, who I
taught in my first school in the late 80s and early 90s. He also played right
back for the junior football team I managed. Back in the day he was a hesitant,
phlegmatic and somewhat limited boy. His attempt to preside over this meeting
proved little had changed over years, other than his hairstyle, as he proved
himself to be an inattentive, bald dullard. The appeal took place on Wednesday
3rd June, but it took almost 3 weeks for the agreed minutes to be
circulated, via an email that also asked if I were prepared to answer more
questions either electronically or over the phone. Presumably because Simon
hadn’t been listening the first time around.
They
arrived 48 hours later on Thursday 25th June; syntactically mangled,
ideologically biased and indicating the case against me remained gossamer thin.
After a few minutes wrangling with Simon’s tortured verbiage that seemed to
have improved little in the 30 years since he was in my class, I felt that the
questions he really wanted me to ask were as follows -:
1. Why were the circumstances
that enabled you to attend work at SITEL between Monday 16th and
Wednesday 25th March different to those that you objected to before
attending work on the NHS line of business?
2.
Why were the circumstances that enabled you
to attend two formal meetings at SITEL different to those that you objected to
before attending work on the NHS line of business?
3. Why did you feel able to
enter the employee canteen and purchase a sandwich and a coffee with other SITEL
employees present when you were no longer a SITEL Employee?
4. Why do you feel
comfortable to attend demonstrations in a public area?
5. Do you still consider that
SITEL’s response to the quoted paragraph is a disproportionate reaction to a
description of other employees of SITEL using these offensive words on a public
forum?
Obviously,
I passed the initial garbled document on to Tom at CWU and the advice he gave
me was that I did not need to answer any questions that could have been asked
at the appeal hearing. Consequently, I offered no response to questions 1, 2
and 3, though I would actually have said the following -:
1.
Contractually, I was obliged to attend work on those dates. If
I had not attended, I would have been regarded as Absent Without Leave and
consequently dismissed. Financially, if I had taken sick leave, I could not
have afforded to live on Statutory Sick Pay. It is only by good fortune that I
did not contract COVID-19 in the environment I was required to work.
2.
I had been assured that SITEL had belatedly
taken steps to observe social distancing protocols and so was prepared to
attend these meetings in person. I am happy to confirm that the building, as
far as I could see, was a far safer environment than I the one I had last been
aware of.
3.
As I was early for the meeting and feeling hungry, I decided
to have lunch. I have never queried the social distancing in the catering facilities
at SITEL, just the lack of adequate measures in work areas and the entrance in
the period up to and including Wednesday 23rd March 2020. I was not
aware that I was no longer permitted to purchase refreshments, or to drink
coffee or eat sandwiches before my appeal hearing. I would suggest that if
SITEL wished me to be both hungry and thirsty before the appeal hearing, the
latest example of discrimination against me goes far beyond the Equality Act
and towards a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the very
first level of Maslow’s Pyramid of Human Needs.
Deciding
not to humiliate them further, I didn’t include these 3 answers, choosing
instead to focus on questions 4 and 5. As regards question 4, while it could be
interpreted as an attempt to introduce additional material, I am happy to
respond as I presume it included a ham-fisted reference to the three Black
Lives Matters peaceful protests in Newcastle on successive Saturdays in
June 2020. Sadly, on account of Laura’s requirement to shield, I can state
unequivocally that I did not attend any of these demonstrations, though I wish
I had been at all of them. I did question what business it is of SITEL what I
did with my time after receiving my dismissal notice on Tuesday 19th May 2020
and further suggested my social media
accounts, that SITEL appeared to be assiduous in their readership of, should
not be regarded as an accurate account of my movements.
I
was happy to offer this response to question 5. Yes. I also reiterated that there
is absolutely no reference to SITEL in the article, so precisely how such a
conclusion could be arrived at by a reasonable person, in the legal sense of
the term, is beyond comprehension. I also pointed out that the use of the word
“offensive” implies a value judgement had been made at the outset of this
process, meaning Simon Saunders demonstrated himself as being prejudicial to my
appeal. Therefore, I urged that this entire point were to be discounted when
considering my appeal and sent the email just after the dismal Burnley v
Watford game.
I
was forced to wait until Friday 3rd July for a decision on my
appeal. I knew Simon Saunders was of limited intelligence, but even I didn’t
believe he was that much of a slow learner. Fairly obviously SITEL up here shit
their pants and passed the case onto HR at British HQ, who’ve written, or
adapted after some furious copy and pasting, a tortuously long and largely
irrelevant response, explaining why they’ve decided to go ahead and sack me. No
problem fucktards; we’ll see you in court!
No comments:
Post a Comment