Discaplinary / Attendance Record

[Vandal]

Should, or do any TOC's consider an employee's discaplinary / attendance record when going for an internal promotion?

 

[185]

Yes, if recruited fairly and correctly, without doubt.

 

[Vandal]

Yes, if recruited fairly and correctly, without doubt.

So, if a TOC does not do this for all internal positions, they are acting unfairly?

 

[Stigy]

So, if a TOC does not do this for all internal positions, they are acting unfairly?

I'd say so. Why do it for some but not for others? The skeptic in me says that certain groups of people fair better than others, and as such all ethics go out the window, unfortunately. It's hard to tell when they've taken a bad attendance record in to consideration, and still recruited an individual, or when they've taken it in to consideration and haven't I guess.

 

[Oswyntail]

As with so many things, it depends. Unless it specifically stipulates on a published job spec that such records will be taken into account, it is surely open to the recruiting officer to use them as they will. I have myself promoted someone with poor records in that sort of area because a) I thought he was the best candidate for the job and b) I suspected that the extra responsibility would improve his records. I was right on both counts, but I admit I took a gamble.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do I detect some background in the OP?

 

[Vandal]

The TOC I'm referring to would be First Scotrail.

I would really like to know if anyone has fallen foul of this for either attendance or conduct when applying for ANY internal position within their ranks.

From personal experience, I have been led to believe that these records are only checked if you go for a driver or conductor position. To elaborate, I was involved in a road traffic accident a few years back that caused me to be off work for a few days. This led to a return to work interview where I was given an attendance warning (for being an innocent victim of said crash), and that was then used against me when I went for a conductors postition a few months after.

Nearly 4 years on and I still can't get my head around the fact that Scotrail first of all gave me a warning for being off due to an event that could have killed all 5 people involved, had it not been for my actions, and mine alone, but to use that to rule me out of a shot at conductor?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[yellowgull]

That seems pretty harsh in my opinion if those were the circumstances but I suppose each company will have differing policies on absence and how they manage it. Im sure if the recruiter knew all the facts then they would be able to make a favorable decision. If your attendance record was good in the period since the incident in my opinion I wouldn't see any reason for this to go against you (im no expert, and often its not an ideal world).

In my experience (non railway), I know of somebody that attained a position when I was aware they had a poor sickness record. When I jokingly asked how he got the job he explained they didn't even ask! I found this hard to believe, so it may be he gave the best interview and was best for the position.

I hope it works out for you

 

[Vandal]

Yes, my attendance was good prior to the crash. I was told that driver / conductor jobs get many applications, so they are whittled down by checking attendance and discaplinary records.

I had a meeting with a senior manager, and even he told me that even if I had explained why my attendance was being monitored, if I was selected for assessment for conductor, Scotrail would be breaking their own (unwritten)rules, so either way, it was not going to happen.

For any current Scotrail employees, check the internal vacancies listings. I'm pretty sure that it says that they will consider all applications from suitable applicants, preferance may be given to agency personnel doing the job, (age, sex, discrimination etc) but nowhere does it say your application will not be considered if you are having your attendance monitored, or if you have any other form of reprimand on your file, or do I stand to be corrected?

But, down the line, (no pun intended) Scotrail DID break their own (unwritten) rules. I'm not going to post on an open forum what they did to me, but I will stress that I done nothing wrong, other than bring it to their attention.

 

[scotsman]

Vandal, I'm not sure if it's in your contract - it is in that of newer staff - but many ScotRail staff are contractually obliged not to talk about their employer. Secondly, they will easily be able to trace you with the details you've posted in this thread. Big Brother is watching...

 

[CarterUSM]

PM me if you wish Vandal, I can explain a few things. MFA guidelines are a joke too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Vandal, I'm not sure if it's in your contract - it is in that of newer staff - but many ScotRail staff are contractually obliged not to talk about their employer. Secondly, they will easily be able to trace you with the details you've posted in this thread. Big Brother is watching...

Good advice, especially the second part.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Driver and Conductor jobs require self discipline and reliability, so checking the records of internal candidates is common sense.

Reading your posts, you refer to "being monitored". Surely you are not still on MFA four years after one bout of sickness? Or have you displayed a pattern of absence in the subsequent years?

Weren't you represented at your initial hearing? The posts above about watching what you post are also sensible. If you have a concern, go to your reps for advice.

 

[Vandal]

Vandal, I'm not sure if it's in your contract - it is in that of newer staff - but many ScotRail staff are contractually obliged not to talk about their employer. Secondly, they will easily be able to trace you with the details you've posted in this thread. Big Brother is watching...

I'm no longer with them.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Driver and Conductor jobs require self discipline and reliability, so checking the records of internal candidates is common sense.

Reading your posts, you refer to "being monitored". Surely you are not still on MFA four years after one bout of sickness? Or have you displayed a pattern of absence in the subsequent years?

Weren't you represented at your initial hearing? The posts above about watching what you post are also sensible. If you have a concern, go to your reps for advice.

My attendance was monitored for the 12 months after the crash, then I had a clear record.

My rep, and my interviewing manager both told me I had to accept the warning, there was nothing I could do. I asked if it would be detrimental to my career and was told No, it would not be used against me.

My original point still stands though. Scotrail used a rule against me that through no fault of mine eliminated me from a fair attempt at a promotion. If they applied that rule to ALL internal applications, then I could accept that because it would be fair, but they did not.

 

[TDK]

I'm no longer with them.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


My attendance was monitored for the 12 months after the crash, then I had a clear record.

My rep, and my interviewing manager both told me I had to accept the warning, there was nothing I could do. I asked if it would be detrimental to my career and was told No, it would not be used against me.

My original point still stands though. Scotrail used a rule against me that through no fault of mine eliminated me from a fair attempt at a promotion. If they applied that rule to ALL internal applications, then I could accept that because it would be fair, but they did not.

MFA does not usually come into force with monitoring until 3 separarte incidents have occured over a timed period, if this was your first sickness incident since being employed or over the year prior you have been unfairly treated, you need to speak to you rep to find out the companies MFA policy and there will certainly be a written company procedure for MFA, the other side of the coin maybe you did have more than one sickness peiod over say a year or off for more than 2 weeks?????

MFA is a strange procedure with some companies, you could have 3 weeks off for one thing and not be interviewed or on the other hand have only one day off 3 times over a year and you're brought in. Was you on you initial probabtion because this is sometimes written into their CP.

 

[Vandal]

MFA does not usually come into force with monitoring until 3 separarte incidents have occured over a timed period, if this was your first sickness incident since being employed or over the year prior you have been unfairly treated, you need to speak to you rep to find out the companies MFA policy and there will certainly be a written company procedure for MFA, the other side of the coin maybe you did have more than one sickness peiod over say a year or off for more than 2 weeks?????

MFA is a strange procedure with some companies, you could have 3 weeks off for one thing and not be interviewed or on the other hand have only one day off 3 times over a year and you're brought in. Was you on you initial probabtion because this is sometimes written into their CP.

To my knowledge, the only other absence I can recall around that time is when I was unlucky enough to catch a vomiting bug that was doing the rounds, and I was off for 2 days.

 

[TDK]

To my knowledge, the only other absence I can recall around that time is when I was unlucky enough to catch a vomiting bug that was doing the rounds, and I was off for 2 days.

You may find you had 3 occurences over a rolling 12 month period and if this was the case you do not have any claim for an unfair probationary 12 month monitoring process, it is unfair at times and a good manager should look at sickness patterns for instance evry Saturday when you favourite footy team are playing or only off sick on a certain day, then this usually is highlighted and questioned at the MFA interview, I think you have just been unlucky by reading your post but the company do have the right to take absence and sickness into consideration when either employing a new entrant or for promotion from one grade to another.

 

[Vandal]

You may find you had 3 occurences over a rolling 12 month period and if this was the case you do not have any claim for an unfair probationary 12 month monitoring process, it is unfair at times and a good manager should look at sickness patterns for instance evry Saturday when you favourite footy team are playing or only off sick on a certain day, then this usually is highlighted and questioned at the MFA interview, I think you have just been unlucky by reading your post but the company do have the right to take absence and sickness into consideration when either employing a new entrant or for promotion from one grade to another.

At the time I did question why I was not given the time that I had off because of the crash as unpaid leave, then I could have claimed lost earnings back as an uninsured loss, and protected my sickness record. After all, the other driver was arrested and charged at the scene. Had I not been involved in that incident, I would not have been absent from work.

You mention yourself that the company do have the right to take absence and sickness into consideration when either employing a new entrant or for promotion from one grade to another, and I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that from my personal experience, this rule was not applied to all internal vacancies. Does that mean that they put a greater emphasis on drivers and conductors vacancies, but not on others? Is that not a form of discrimination, as in we will check your file for this position, but not for that one?

 

[Greenback]

Discrimination normally means treating people differently based on factors like gender, race, age or sexuality. Naturally, certain posts will require greater skills, experience or responsibility, and will therefore involve greater or more thorough checks on applicants.

As long as all of the applicants for a post have been treated in the same way, there has been no discrimination. From what you say, that may not have happened, but without being in possession of all of the facts, it is impossible to say.

 

[BestWestern]

I have to say that I'm often left slightly downhearted by the attendance policies of employers. It does sometimes appear that those who are genuinely off work for a good reason, and who don't often have time off, are persued by managers who seem paranoid that every person who has a sick day is taking the company for a ride. Yet at the same time you will inevitably have those who are off for a week or two every couple of months, or who take 6 months of every year off, returning just in time to retain their full pay, or those who seem to be pregnant for most of their 'career', etc etc, who end up just getting away with it.

There is a clear imbalance, and it does frequently seem that those who are willing to have the brass neck to take the mic and play the system end up being left to it, presumably because the management realise that it's just too much grief chasing somebody who has an answer for everything, whilst those who have the odd day or two off because they are actually unfit for work end up being made to feel guilty for it. It's certainly not an ideal system, and I would question the wisdom of punishing occassional sickness in an industry where people are frequently reminded of the importance of being 'fit for duty'.

 

[185]

FirstGroup in particular have little regard for employment law. Was nice to see a judge wiping the floor with their human resources people last year. Having a perfect attendance, punctuality, disciplinary and safety record counts for nothing with them.

 

[BestWestern]

FirstGroup in particular have little regard for employment law. Was nice to see a judge wiping the floor with their human resources people last year.

What was that case in relation to?

 

[Greenback]

I have to say that I'm often left slightly downhearted by the attendance policies of employers. It does sometimes appear that those who are genuinely off work for a good reason, and who don't often have time off, are persued by managers who seem paranoid that every person who has a sick day is taking the company for a ride. Yet at the same time you will inevitably have those who are off for a week or two every couple of months, or who take 6 months of every year off, returning just in time to retain their full pay, or those who seem to be pregnant for most of their 'career', etc etc, who end up just getting away with it.

There is a clear imbalance, and it does frequently seem that those who are willing to have the brass neck to take the mic and play the system end up being left to it, presumably because the management realise that it's just too much grief chasing somebody who has an answer for everything, whilst those who have the odd day or two off because they are actually unfit for work end up being made to feel guilty for it. It's certainly not an ideal system, and I would question the wisdom of punishing occassional sickness in an industry where people are frequently reminded of the importance of being 'fit for duty'.

I had discussions about this as a union rep with senior management who had decreed that anyone on a stage 1 sickness warning (informal chat) could not even apply for promotion.

The basic gist of the union argument was that as the stage 1 was automatic, and took no account of the circumstances of any absence, it was potentially depriving the company of someone who might have been the best candidate for the post, but, as in one example, had been unfortunate enough to be victim of an assault, causing a three week absence which was the first absence of any kind in five years.

In contrast, someone who regularly took ten days (or whatever the cut off was) sickness every year would be able to apply, and possibly be appointed.
Clearly, it was in the interests of the organisation to amend their policy, which they did eventually do. unfortaunatly it took about two years for this to happen, despite management being unable to properly justify their policy.

 

[BestWestern]

I had discussions about this as a union rep with senior management who had decreed that anyone on a stage 1 sickness warning (informal chat) could not even apply for promotion.

The basic gist of the union argument was that as the stage 1 was automatic, and took no account of the circumstances of any absence, it was potentially depriving the company of someone who might have been the best candidate for the post, but, as in one example, had been unfortunate enough to be victim of an assault, causing a three week absence which was the first absence of any kind in five years.

In contrast, someone who regularly took ten days (or whatever the cut off was) sickness every year would be able to apply, and possibly be appointed.
Clearly, it was in the interests of the organisation to amend their policy, which they did eventually do. unfortaunatly it took about two years for this to happen, despite management being unable to properly justify their policy.

That says it all really :roll: It has always been beyond me how the hell it can be legal to automatically apply a disciplinary sanction to somebody for simply being off work unwell. Presumably, if it came to it, somebody who had been unwell due to an incident at work could end up taking the company to Court for damages having been subjected to this shoddy, career-obstructing treatment by the same organisation in who's service the incident took place?! It stinks!

 

[TDK]

At the time I did question why I was not given the time that I had off because of the crash as unpaid leave, then I could have claimed lost earnings back as an uninsured loss, and protected my sickness record. After all, the other driver was arrested and charged at the scene. Had I not been involved in that incident, I would not have been absent from work.

You mention yourself that the company do have the right to take absence and sickness into consideration when either employing a new entrant or for promotion from one grade to another, and I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that from my personal experience, this rule was not applied to all internal vacancies. Does that mean that they put a greater emphasis on drivers and conductors vacancies, but not on others? Is that not a form of discrimination, as in we will check your file for this position, but not for that one?

Not nessesarily discrimination, there are many things that are different between emplying safety critical personnel other than not SC. There are company guidelines on what the criteria is. For instance, if a driver or conductor is late on duty there is a risk of a cancelled train but if say a member of office staff is late it will not so therefore there must be some differences.

It does not matter for what reason you are off sick be is a common cold or an injury from a car accident no matter whos fault it is, if you are off sick you are off sick.

Did you receive any feedback on your refusal except the sickness record?

As you know jobs for conductors and drivers are very popular and as an interviewer employer you have to have strict guidlines on what is acceptable on an application form.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That says it all really :roll: It has always been beyond me how the hell it can be legal to automatically apply a disciplinary sanction to somebody for simply being off work unwell. Presumably, if it came to it, somebody who had been unwell due to an incident at work could end up taking the company to Court for damages having been subjected to this shoddy, career-obstructing treatment by the same organisation in who's service the incident took place?! It stinks!

Yes indeed, some companies MFA are very unfair and unwarrented however it is drwn into the employees contract so cannot be argued upon, there have been rare occasions when sometimes if someone was off sick due to say a work related injury or illness this would not be included in their MFA record however this is not always the case for instance one driver I had to bring in for MFA one period of their sickness was down to a fatality, I did not agree with this but unfortunatley the higher grade mangers insisted that the driver was brought in and it recorded on their record that they had been subjected to an MFA interview, more recently this draconion way of MFA has now dwindles to only a couple of companies and the unions and management are always negociating to get a better system.

 

[Vandal]

The feedback on my refusal was based on my sickness record, and that alone.

 

[First class]

It is worth noting that Merseyrail does not (supposedly) look at sickness levels when considering for promotion/employment.

The reasoning is that sickness could be caused (or claimed to be) as the current job is unsuitable.

 

[TDK]

The feedback on my refusal was based on my sickness record, and that alone.

If that is the case your sickness record was either poor of they didn't want you for the job. It is a shame that this was the only reason but because there are hundreds of applicants they do have to have strict guidlines.

 

[Vandal]

If that is the case your sickness record was either poor of they didn't want you for the job. It is a shame that this was the only reason but because there are hundreds of applicants they do have to have strict guidlines.

When I asked for feedback, a CTM was nice enough to come out to my station to tell me face to face why I was not selected. When I told him my absence was due to a crash that was entirely beyond my control, he then said that had he known that then I would have been put forward for assessment. Up until the crash, I had no sickness record and for my entire railway career, I had no conduct record. One year on from the crash, my sickness record was clean again, so I was only really monitored because of the absence stemming from that car crash.

The part about not wanting me for the job has me a little puzzled, as that is what I thought interviews and tests were for. For a different position not long after, I did take the concentration (dots) test and passed that, but I was told that I was lacking a little confidence, but after a chat with a medical professional, it turned out that that too could have been attributed to the crash (indirectly), but more so from the chain of events that followed.