E-mail 1 - To the paper & HR
Hi Roger
Disgruntled ex-employee back again.
Your silence will not make any difference to me.
Jez Peel, driver mentioned in July 2009, is still being over-despatched and is still working through his dinner break. (As at Thursday 26th April)
He has historically had a long planned day and comes in around about on plan so cannot be said to be taking the Mickey.
Even allowing for the recent time study, are you saying that the figures are wrong? If so, why is this route difficult to cover when Jez is on holiday?
Steve O’Donnell’s mantra when the figures work in the Company’s has been “the figures are the figures”. Why is this not the case when it works against the Company?
Irrespective of the figures, historical dataand my observations, a new supervisor has been out on a ride with Jez. Why has this new supervisor not been able to improve Jez’s methods? Is this because Jez’s methods are good? Is this why the new supervisor ‘encouraged’ Jez to continue taking his break at the end of the day? Even though I have reported these issues for almost 3 years, a new broom hasn’t been able to change the policy of overloading drivers as set by Steve O’Donnell (although Steve will blame his minion Shayne Williams)
Steve O’Donnell’s answer to Jez when he went to see Steve was that “I’m looking into it” Why is it taking 3 years to look into it. It’s another stock mantra like “things are going to change” It’s an easy process, look at the data, analyse the data, then act. It took me about an hour when I initially looked into it.
Dave Dwyer, driver mentioned regarding disciplinaries March 2011, is still working through his break. (As at Friday 27th April)
As part of his re-training we set a maximum figure of 75 delivery stops. This figure generated a reasonable planned day, and brought Dave in at on, or around scratch. Why the need to grossly overload Dave, (approx 20% over) and force him to work long hours? Once again, Shayne Williams blames Steve O’Donnell and Steve O’Donnell blames Shayne Williams.
There seems to be no action by the Company or the Union in resolving these issues
E-mail 4 - To the paper & HR
Roger
I always believe that UPS were supposed to implement a fair and consistent sickness procedure that was standard across the board. Can you explain why there is one rule for some and one rule for others? Two drivers spoke to me on Thursday and said that the policies keep changing (without notification) and that there is favouritism towards some drivers.
Unfair pressure (Intimidation) is being put on drivers to try and reduce absence through sickness. Drivers are being intimidated, harassed and threatened in order to reduce sickness.
Threats are made that sickness will be unpaid, even on the first occurrence. Drivers have to go and “grovel” to Steve O’Donnell to get their unpaid sickness reversed and changed to paid sick. If payment is reversed, why was it deemed unpaid in the first place? Drivers are blamed for a return to work review not taking place.
I believe managers can only telephone employees who are sick to check on their current well being. Why did Steve O’Donnell telephone an employee “literally begging” the driver to come back to work?
Drivers are so intimidated by UPS that even with 3 years absence free attendance and broken ribs they still feel pressured into coming to work, for fear of not being paid. Doesn’t the Company have a legal obligation to send the driver home if he is not fit, rather than put someone out with him?
Steve rang a driver who failed to turn up for work, it turned out he was on an authorised holiday in Greece
E-Mail 5 - To the paper & HR
Roger
Once again the jungle drums have been beating (This information comes to me, I don’t go looking for it)
The first set of tom-toms said that Steve O’Donnell was going to be Manager at Luton .
The second set said there was a DIAD message saying that he was leaving early to go and pack his bags. (Leaving early on a Friday afternoon? Was he scared to face the troops?)
If I remember correctly Luton is a bigger Centre than Dewsbury. So that would be a promotion. Even if Luton is a similar size I’m sure that with relocation incentives Steve O’Donnell will be on a financial promotion.
Have the results at Dewsbury been so good that Steve O’Donnell has earned a promotion? Shouldn’t the Company be looking at how these results were obtained?
By promoting Steve O’Donnell you are condoning the tachograph & working time infringements that have been ignored.
By promoting Steve O’Donnell you are condoning the bullying, intimidation and harassment that has occurred at Dewsbury.
Division Managers, Carl Mcguinness and Craig McIntosh are aware of the issues that I have raised.
UK & Ireland Operations Manager, Tony Colaizzo is aware of the issues that I have raised.
District Manager, Cindy Miller is aware of the issues that I have raised.
Compliance and Ethics department are aware of the issues that I have raised.
HR, (Roger Mays, Lisa Bradshaw & Emma O’Toole) are aware of the issues that I have raised.
You are all condoning Steve O’Donnell’s actions by promoting him and are therefore complicit in his actions.
I shouldn’t need to remind anyone of these points but just in case anyone hasn’t read up on these issues recently;
A few snippets from the national tachograph compliance document
UPS must organize work loads so that drivers are able to comply with the Driver’s Hours and Tachograph Regulations.
Where drivers infringe the regulations UPS must take action to prevent any repetition from occurring.
How should breaks from driving be taken?
During any break a driver must not drive or undertake other work.
Where drivers infringe the regulations UPS must take action to prevent any repetition from occurring.
It is not sufficient for UPS to give the driver an infringement report pointing out the contraventions and do nothing else.
Failure to take corrective actions can be viewed by the courts as either ‘permitting the offence’ of ‘failing to intervene’. Such corrective actions must be documented.
UPS must have a system in place to prevent its’ vehicles from being overloaded.
Accountability Guidelines
Where Infringements are identified, UPS – as an operator – has a legal obligation to take corrective action to prevent any repetition that may occur.
Corrective action may take many forms, but in all cases, must be evidenced by some form of written record. In the event that employees fail to correct the action which led to the infringement, and therefore continue to infringe, UPS will implement a progressive disciplinary procedure – as laid down in its’ employees’ contract of employment – which may, in serious cases, lead to the dismissal of an employee.
Similarly, UPS must and will take corrective action against any Centre or other operating site that does not adequately manage this process.
The flow chart on the following page illustrates the basic process:
Notes:
1 – Has the driver broken the law through this infringement? E.g.; Speeding, Breaks, Centre Field Errors etc
2 – What is the level of severity of the infringement?
3 – Does the driver have any previous history of this type of infringement?
4 – If so, has any previous action been taken against the driver? What type of action was taken?
5 – Action must be taken in all cases. Dependent on the previous history and action taken.
6 – Record action taken on the Driver Infringement Record and Employee Personnel File as appropriate.
7 – Ensure that a copy of the written action is retained on file.
From the Policy Book
We manage our business in compliance with all the applicable laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate and in accordance with our company's high standards of business conduct. All employees are expected to comply with the Code of Business Conduct, which is essential to maintaining our reputation for honesty, quality, and integrity. Also, it is each employee's responsibility to report to the company any situation where our standards or the laws are being violated. Any employee disclosing, in good faith, violations or suspected violations of legal or UPS business standards will not be subjected to retaliation or retribution. Likewise, failure to comply with the provisions of the UPS Code of Business Conduct will not be tolerated.
As individuals, we do not have the authority to change or disregard any of our company’s policies. We are expected to follow existing policies, even if not always in complete agreement with them. Our managers and supervisors set the example for carrying out our policies. They, therefore, are expected to lead the way for other UPS people – by word and action – in living up to our policies. We must be careful not to misinterpret or violate a policy’s spirit and intent. If in doubt, we should check with others for guidance.
(The red crayon's been out again)
FAO Marianna Wyles
Ref - 318858-1334610392
Thank you for your recent letter dated 20th April 2012.
Unfortunately I am unable to answer your questions about UPS employees.
On 28th March 2012 I asked if anyone in UPS was a member of CIPD – To date no reply
In response to your letter, I asked for the relevant information in an e-mail dated 22nd April 2012 – Again, to date no reply.
It’s possible they are members and are embarrassed to admit that they are, or they might not be members and be embarrassed to admit that they have not joined the Institute.
The UPS employees involved are;
Roger Mays roger.mays@europe.ups.com
Emma O’Toole eotoole@ups.com
Lisa Bradshaw lxbradshaw@ups.com
I have supplied e-mail addresses for you, maybe they’ll respond to you.
Additional work
Followed up with E-mails to HSE & International Olympic Committee
Roger
As we have now had over 3 months of inaction, it would seem that you are not capable of dealing with my grievances as per the Company procedure.
I would like to request the name of your superior as I would like him/her to take up the grievances.
Similarly, the grievance procedure states that the District Manager’s decision is final in the procedure. I would like to contest this;
Cindy Miller is complicit in the events that I have reportedCindy Miller is complicit in intimidation, meeting October 2011 withTony Colaizzo , Craig McIntosh & Steve O’Donnell against myself.Cindy Miller , by her own admission, lacks the intelligence to conduct this investigation.
At the above meeting, Cindy Miller accused me of threatening the Company, as I tried to explain, I was rudely interrupted, and told that I was questioning Cindy’s intelligence if she expected me to believe otherwise. (I have requested notes from this meeting)
Definition of threat - A statement of an intention to…
At the meeting I was about to explain the above definition and the facts that I had in my resignation letter dated 16th September 2011 stated that I had spoken to Hewisons in Featherstone. As this pre-dates the meeting it can’t be an intention and therefore can’t be a threat.
Similarly, I had copied into an e-mail my contact with VOSA, again this pre-dated the meeting and therefore cannot be a threat of an intention to do something.
This was also stated in grievance 3. (Attached)
The whole grievance procedure should not have taken the time it has taken you to do nothing. An extract from the document that I sent to you on 22nd April 2012.
Point 1 – 14 days
Point 2 – 14 days
Point 3 – 14 days
Point 4 – 14 days
Point 5 – 28 days
Point 6 It is intended that the use of this process will ensure that the grievance will be resolved speedily and at the earliest possible stage within the procedure.
Roger, that is a maximum of 12 weeks. Why are you stalling?
E-mail 3 - To the paper & HR
Copy of an earlier e-mail. Background history sent to the paper (HR copied in)
No comments:
Post a Comment