MANAGEMENT
INTERVIEW - 4
JUNE 1999
The Management Interview re Joseph Bednarczyk was held on
You have already been spoken to on several occasions by your Management and in view of recent events the position has now become more formal.
The letter shows the areas which we intend to cover in the Management interview which you should answer as fully as possible following which your Management will consider what action to take which could include formal disciplinary action.
A discussion took place regarding the procedure and Joseph requested that he be allowed to consider all his answers as he wished to give full answers.
CUK3
1.
Why did you not inform David or Martin regarding this
issue?
I
told you both about it as soon as I realised that I wasn't going to be able to
do this. Told Dave around the first week in April. Told you a few days
after. Only realised in Early April
that it was too complicated.
DL states
that it was third week in April. Why did it take so long?
It
may have been a little later but I told DL as soon as I realised. DL may have seen you a few days
later. Things went backwards and
forwards and DL asked me to tell you personally.
This
question asked why I did not inform DL or MS regarding this problem. I did
inform both of them as soon as I realised that this was going to be the
case.
Background
is needed to this subject to get a clearer picture of what is being discussed.
This spreadsheet, as most of the other automated procedures within Income
Control, were devised by myself as part of the overall Control procedures. I set
up all of the processes within Income Control to alleviate the Control staff of
many of the more repetitive functions.
There has
never been any obligation on my part to produce this level of sophistication but
this has been done to show my commitment to the work involved within Income
Control.
The CUK3
spreadsheet was a project that I set up by myself, done mostly in my spare time
at home. There was no assistance from any other members of staff or management.
It was a project that I set up to show management that the information they were
receiving could be presented more efficiently.
The
original work was done at a time where the workload within Income Control was
not as heavy as it is now. Since then, many new functions have been taken on
board and to spend the time required dealing with this type of project has
become impossible.
Each
year, I have historically taken this project home with me and updated the
spreadsheet in my own time. This is because I feel proud of the work that I do
within Income Control and feel as though I did not mind spending time at home
keeping up to date with the processes and also updating the finished products.
This has
not been possible over the past year and I have found progressively that any
updates needed on this particular spreadsheet have become harder and harder to
update. This has been mentioned to management over the past year or two but no
assistance or efforts to help or to backup this procedure have ever been
offered.
When I
finally came to this conclusion regarding the spreadsheet, the reaction from MS
was aggressive stating that he would cancel the NVQ I was involved with. I was
shocked by his response stating that my IT skills were being put to good use on
many other projects apart from this one. Just another example of management
harassing.
This
should have been no shock to management who had been told on many occasions as
to the increasing complexity of this particular project. I feel that they have
been very fortunate to have this extra work given to them free of charge over
the past few years. Instead, the reaction is an insult to the amount of work
that I have put into this spreadsheet over that time
Why did
you not tell us earlier?
It
was becoming increasingly complex and taking time to put right. I do it at end of March early April
every year but I couldn't understand it, I'd forgotten so
much.
I told
management as soon as I realised this was going to be the
case.
Did you
not look at this in January 1999
I
do look at this during the year approx. 6 or 7 times to correct information but
not to go into visual basic which is where the difficulties
are.
This is
true but each year the whole updating procedure becomes that much more
difficult. The work I do during the year is just to make sure that the current
week produces the correct information.
2.
Can you explain how Francis Smith knew about this problem before your
management?
No.
Can't remember telling her but may have mentioned it in
passing
Everyone knew it was complex and I told her it was
difficult.
This
question has no relevance to the original problem but I did answer it as stated.
I deal with Francis on a regular basis regarding Working Practices. This may
have been mentioned as it does impact on a change to the current workings of the
section.
I
cannot remember in what context it was mentioned or why it was mentioned before
informing management of the problem. It is not really an issue. The fact was
that this spreadsheet had now become too difficult to maintain. This is
supported by the fact that no-one else in the whole Income Unit is able to deal
with this spreadsheet. Surely management should have realised this a long time
ago.
These
questions are just trying to hide the issue of why was there no attempt by
management to train either themselves or even other members of staff to deal
with this type of information presentation when they had been told of the
continuing complexity on many occasions.
Did you
tell her you were not doing it?
No, or maybe yes but after I had told
Dave. I can tell who I want. We were probably having a discussion
about working practices and the CUK3 was mentioned. I would have told her if she had asked
me but I am not sure when.
I did not
say “I can tell who I want”. What I was saying here was that if I am asked a
question regarding issues which affect Working Practices, then I may have
mentioned it.
Notes
from management concur that this was actually said during the interview
3.
Can you explain how Richard Carter knew about this before
management?
The same. Within a day or so he came down with
a query, I can't quite remember, it may have come out in
conversation.
Richard
Carter is a user of this spreadsheet apart from many other spreadsheets which I
have designed. The topic of the CUK3 probably came up in the conversations we
had around that time.
Do you
think it appropriate that others knew before Management?
There
was no reason to tell others before Management, Management should know
first.
Again,
the question here is not whether others should know about a spreadsheet which I
have designed before management but an issue of hiding behind other
questions.
These
first 3 questions relate to an issue which should have been resolved a long time
ago. Management have known for many years regarding this issue. The fault is
with their lack of co-operation with the work I have been doing, not the other
way round. Their lack of support for this project in terms of any training for
any of the Control staff or other members of Systems to be able to backup any
problems with this spreadsheet has brought this situation
about.
After
all this, I am now being harassed by them over side issues to try to hide the
main issue involved here – one of lack of management planning and support.
4.
Manual figures for CUK3. Did you say to Dave that control would not be
able to fulfill MS' request to have the CUK3 figure because Lynn Armstrong was
too busy doing refunds?
This was about control priorities. I asked, "which would you like to be
done".
Martin repeated the
question.
DL
asked for it I said it would take a while to do manually but if needed obviously
I would do it.
Martin repeated the
question.
I
don't know, I didn't say I liked standing on one leg.
Martin repeated the
question.
No. Lynne had nothing to do with it, I was
going to explain how to do it to the staff but Lynne had not been shown how to
do it at that point.
Ash
sent the figures to MS that same day
This
was not the answer I gave at the interview. MS asked me if I had said this to
Dave when Ashraf had sent the manual CUK3 to him at home via e-mail. I replied
that
A
background is needed to this as well. The CUK3 was originally a printed report
which Control would receive and pass over to MS. He would extract the details
from this report and generate his own statistics. My efforts to produce this
spreadsheet showed that this procedure could be greatly streamlined and made
more user friendly.
When
I told MS that I would be unable to continue with the spreadsheet, his reaction
was aggressive and his tone sounded on the tone of “I’ll get you for this”. I
was very shocked at this. In a meeting with DL and MS later, MS told me that he
wanted Control to provide the same statistics but this time on a manual basis.
This
has added many hours of entering data into a template to get to the required
totals. You have to remember that this process was formerly performed by MS and
Control were only the delivery agent.
I
have started to train staff in the methods needed to produce this report. I have
designed the template for them to use and they were to take it in turns to
produce the statistics.
The
first week was spent designing the template with Ashraf Hussain who helped to
enter the data. The process took around 6 hours to
complete.
As
stated, I helped Ashraf to complete the manual CUK3 on the first week. This was
sent to MS at home.
The
week after, I asked
There
was no confusion here but an allocation of resources
Management
notes confirm that this was in fact what was said during the
interview
Risk
Assessment of Automatic Tasks
Your
E-mail of
5.
A list of processes "subject to melt down or which could not be supported
in his absence" was requested in order that Management could make an informed
decision whether to accept the risks and look up back up procedures if this did
occur. Why did you not send this
E-mail to Management in the first instance?
It
was an error I am used to sending a template to all. I don't send everything to staff that
goes to Management. I realised
afterwards.
The
answer in the interview was given without reading the e-mail again. On
reflection, the action I took was correct and in compliance with management
directives.
On
“Would
you clarify the directive you made this morning, by-email or letter that I
should not do any more work on spreadsheets etc that cannot be updated by the
System Technicians.
This
has very serious repercussions for the work done on Control and I need
confirmation of this before putting this into
practice.”
Following
on from this, MS sent a management letter dated
This
e-mail regarding the changes was sent to DL on
Thinking
it through, I cannot see any problem in sending this to my team as a cc: through
e-mail. They should be kept informed of any changes which need to be made on
Control. The changes needed are to set up manual procedures in case there is a
problem with the automated process. The Control team needed to know about this
for when I began to set up the manual procedures as a
backup.
D id you
do anything about it?
The
E-mail came back from DL shortly afterwards to say he wanted to discuss it. I think he also came round and said that
we needed to answer each point and should continue using the current procedure
which I have done since then. There
is no problem there.
The
following e-mail was returned by DL on
“Just
so that you are aware I felt the need to talk to the technicians yesterday to
reiterate that they were still to undertake the tasks you listed in your email
of the 04/05/99, as I confirmed to you verbally and in a return email on the
same date. This will be the case
until such time that the issues contained in your email can be addressed
properly.
Thanks
Dave”
Considering
the emphasis in MS letter regarding the complexity issues, nothing has been done
by management over the past month to address this issue. How is this possible
when it has been highlighted in a management letter as a serious issue.
7.
Why did you write an instruction "the following areas are to be reverted
to manual procedures" when my letter and Dave's verbal instruction were for you
to carry on and doing a risk assessment?
It
should say 'Begin'. A slip of words
- didn't really mean it
If
this is read in context in my e-mail, you will notice that the paragraph follows
on from the previous two where I said that “these are the changes which need to
take place for this to be put into effect”. I then went on to explain the changes
that would be needed. This is how the paragraphs read:
“In the
letter from MS dated
Also,
to comply with the new management thought on the way Control procedures should
be documented, these are the changes which need to take place for this to be put
into effect.
The
following areas are to be reverted to manual procedures. Then, in line with
System Technician skills, new methods will be applied which means that the
overall process will not be dependent on just one individual to
maintain.”
MS
is reading this completely out of context. The paragraphs are simple enough but
it seems that MS is trying to look at any phrases that can be interpreted to
support his allegations, even though they are not, in any way, designed to be
non co-operative with management. Rather the opposite if you were to read the
whole e-mail. I spent time highlighting 26 areas as soon as I had received his
management letter. I cannot see why this is being used as an argument for
non-co-operation. Obviously, MS is getting
desperate to find legitimate items that will support his very biased
viewpoint.
Again,
this supports my view of management harassment which I have been experiencing
from both MS and DL.
Also,
MS letter stated “if advance warning is not possible, then alternative
procedures should be available to handle tasks that are complex and may be
subject to ‘breakdown’. Presently, because of the way procedures have been
designed, there are no alternatives to the automated procedures. Working practices should be changed to
cope with this so that in case of problems, the manual way of accomplishing
these tasks would need to be documented.
I
know that in the interview I said that the word “begin” was a slip of words but
this was only because I did not have the narrative in front of me. The wording
is correct, as the manual procedures would need to be started immediately to
cater for manual procedures in case the automated procedures were to
fail.
The
final part concerning DL instructions. These instructions came only after the
e-mail had been sent and this instruction has been complied with every detail.
Why
are you making these allegations and wasting both my time and management time?
It seems MS is taking everything out of context just to try to prove his
allegation that I am being non co-operative with management. The opposite is
much more the case.
The
harassment I am receiving from both MS and DL is making performing the Control
function almost impossible.
8.
Did you also tell Francis Smith verbally about this issue after receiving
DL's response and his verbal instruction?
Don't
remember, I've slept
since then. I may have discussed things with her during our working
practice sessions.
My answer
was that this may have been mentioned to her during our Working Practice
sessions. If these procedures did have to be reverted to manual methods, it
would mean a change to the Working Practices.
9.
Hypothetically, if you were in this situation would you have said this to
her?
Why
should I say this if this is not what the procedures are. I may have mentioned
to her that things might be changing though. It's not my decision at the end of the
day, I can't see a reason why said that, maybe said maybe a strong
chance.
I
remember that I repeated the answer to point 8.
Whilst
the content of this answer remained the same, the manner in which it is recorded
above is correct
10. When Peter
Norris requested his usual report the day after your E-mail and verbal
instruction why did you give him the paper copy.
Delays
were caused that Monday that meant that all output was late. Paula Briggs passed
the copy to Peter.
Answer is
correct. Paula passed the report to Pete Norris inadvertently. The instruction
is to file the report and send the downloaded copy to
Peter.
11. Was this
because you were now following this new procedure?
No,
it was because of the delay
Answer
correct.
12. Did you
question why Peter needed this report electronically.
No,
I discussed the best way that he should get it, Excel or Text file. This was part of my master plan I
started a few years ago.
Answer
correct.
Did you
question why he needed it in electronic format?
I
don't think so. Him and DL came
round. It was sent that afternoon,
there was no problem with that.
These were processes which systems technicians couldn't
do.
Peter and
DL asked me why the CU32 had been passed around in hard copy. I explained that
Paula had passed it inadvertently and the downloaded copy was a little late in
arriving this week.
I
determine high risk as where there is no alternative, is there an
alternative?
There
is a manual alternative to all of these just the same as the CUK3 except it just
takes a lot longer.
The
answer to this was not full enough.
There
is an alternative to all of the automated procedures that have been set up but
it means that I will have to train staff in these areas and also amend the
working practices.
The
current working practice is to press a macro button and the procedure will be
performed. These automated sessions are all documented but the manual sessions
are not.
If
there was a problem with any of the automated procedures and I was not
available, it could lead to a situation where the manual process may be
performed incorrectly or not at all.
13. Are these
high risk areas?
That’s
up to Management to ascertain. They can all be covered with manual procedures.
These were processes which systems technicians couldn't
do.
Answer
correct.
14. What was
the purpose of the final paragraph and was it appropriate given it went to all
staff?
Yes
it was appropriate. It was a
genuine remark and not a sarcastic comment, It was not intended for the rest of
Control to see but I hoped nobody else saw it as a sarcastic comment and got the
wrong message
Did you
think DL saw it as sarcastic?
That's
up to him.
This
remark was appropriate. I have been working on Control procedures for many years
and maybe there are areas which could still be improved even though they have
been working well for many years. Not a sarcastic comment.
Sanderson
Software
15. I asked for
you view on the Sanderson inspection procedure on 2.2.99. You did not respond so
I followed this up with some alterations on 8.2.99. These procedures involved
control running various jobs.
Why did
you not respond to this?
I
have given this answer on many occasions.
Joseph
requested time to consider answer.
16. Once this
became an issue, you met with DL in MS' office for approx. 3 hours, and said you
thought he was joking. What did you
find was amusing about this.
Joseph
requested time to consider answer.
Hardware
Inventory System
17. Quote from
Martin letter. David had made
repeated requests to you to spend just 5 minutes to look at the software. These requests were ignored, why do you
think that is appropriate?
I
was too busy. It was not
specialised enough for our needs. I had downloaded it from the Internet at home
and looked at it already. We needed something tailored. I took it on board to look at it but it
was not a priority. I was asked for
it by a Monday date, I have other specific priorities so I didn't do it. I subsequently spent 40 minutes with
Robeena Khan and then repeated my same comments that I had mentioned a week
earlier. Why such a big issue about
a little thing?
Why did
you ignore the request?
I
have mentioned already it was not a priority, I had given my concerns as I had
looked at this at home, I did make efforts in the first instance, my time was
wasted as a Team Leader that can be used more
beneficially.
But DL
wanted this - the question was repeated.
I
still can't understand this.
This
answer has not been documented properly.
I
was asked by DL to take a look at this software previously. I had discussed this
with him at that time. I spend a fair amount of time on the Internet and had
downloaded the same software at home. I knew what this was like. I did not
consider that this was relevant to the specialised needs of the Income Control
team and gave my reasons.
As
I had already given my “valued opinion” (as had been requested by DL) on this
subject, I did not consider this a priority. DL had asked me to take a look at
the software even though I had explained why this was not appropriate to the
needs of the team.
I
left important work on Control to spend 40 minutes with RK looking through the
software. I showed her the current Control inventory which is far more relevant
to our needs. My suggestion has always been to bring up the Control staff to a
level where a database is designed by them on Access which can then be updated
as the needs of Control change.
This
40 minutes resulted in passing the same appraisal of the software to DL as I had
given originally. The time I have on Control is very limited to do what I need
to do already and I could see no reason why I should spend time on a very low
priority issue which I had already answered. I did intend to spend time with RK
to comply with DL directive but it has been difficult to find the time to do
this. Control functions take all of my time especially with the needs of
training new staff and keeping the current staff updated with the latest
developments.
This
is just an example of what I consider to be management bullying. This was not an
operational issue but just an example of management using their authority just
for the sake of it to show that they could make you do what they want regardless
of its value.
The
answer has been document according to the notes take by management on the
day
18. You stated
when you met MS/DL on 22.4.99 that you had set up a meeting with Robeena Khan,
which had not been set up, can you explain?
I
never said this in the meeting and I had not set anything up. I said I'd do it today. I intended sitting with her that
afternoon and did.
This
answer is not as I remember answering the question.
I
remember in our meeting with DL and MS that I was asked about this Inventory
question. I had explained what I had already told DL previously but this was not
acceptable to MS and DL who were very heavy handed about this wanting me to have
a look at the database again.
I
felt as though I was being bullied into this. It was no longer a question of
taking a look at the database as this would be a waste of time but it was a
matter of “you will do whatever we say no matter how stupid it is”. I remember
feeling that.
I
did tell them both that I had intended to take a look at the database that
afternoon. I had intended to take a look at the database on each day since I had
been requested to do this by DL. With the amount of work on Control and the low
priority of the database in my overall task list, I just had not found the time
to do it.
I
did sit in with RK that afternoon, pushing other far more important
considerations to one side just to comply with this management request. After 40
minutes in which I had explained the problems in using the Primasoft database
for Control Inventory purposes and then showing our own database, I repeated
what I had told DL after the original request. I had wasted 40 minutes of my
time but at least management were satisfied with themselves.
Notes
from management concur that this was actually said during the
interview
19. Meeting on
15.4.99 E-mail requested you attendance and was ignored. When Dave approached
you, you claimed not to have received the e-mail, then that you had not read it,
then that you had forgotten? Why was this
Just
back from holiday I had 30/40 e-mails. Had read it and forgotten it - it slipped
my mind. Normally I remember. This is so petty, so
fickle.
The
meeting itself was taking place just a few yards from my desk. To remind me on
the day of the meeting would have been no inconvenience at all. DL, RK and
myself had attended the IT Meeting prior to this meeting. To call this a gross
non co-operation with management requirements shows how desperate MS is to find
areas which he can use to substantiate his claim. I consider this to be
management harassment and intend to take action of my own
Audit
Report on Storing Cheques
20. Repeated
requests were made for your comments on the report, you stated you would provide
by Monday but by a meeting on Thursday it had still not been done. A systems technician took less than an
hour to do a response, can you explain?
Apologised
already for this. Did not think it was a high priority. No other reason behind
this. I thought there was no rush,
so I put in in a pile. Normally
audit report's take 2 minutes as the control procedures are
good.
The
response shown in the transcript is very abrupt. I did not intend any of my
answers to be heard in this way. The reply should read as
follows:
I
have already explained this in my reply to the original letter from MS. In that
reply, I did apologise for not seeing MS on the day he suggested. I cannot
remember the exact details of what happened at that point in time but I remember
MS dropping the report on my desk and said “no rush” as he zoomed off. This is
his normal style of interaction and you have to be quick to catch what he
actually wants to say.
When
I read the report, the changes needed were very slight and not urgent. They
would have taken 5 minutes to implement. I amended my Dataease system to
partially take care of the Audit report and was going to finish off the changes
after I had seen MS. Due to pressure of work and other commitments, the report
was on my desk under other papers for a few days.
The
Systems Technician who dealt with this while I was absent took a folder and drew
5 lines down the middle. Not a big problem.
Although
I cannot remember the exact details of this, I do always try to meet any
management requirements. There are times when I am ready to go to see MS or DL
only to find that they are currently occupied with other members of staff. When
this happens, it is very easy to lose track of these things as Control can be a
very busy place to work.
Again,
to call this an instance of non co-operation with management requirements is
“scraping the barrel”
and falls more in line with management harassment.
Printer
Software
21. This was
not examined until 3 months after the original request, why did it take so long
to get back to MS (after chased by DL). Can you explain?
Did
not think it was urgent. No deadline given when originally requested. I thought you said have a go if I had
time. I was interested in it but
didn't get time.
Again,
the reply here is not the way the reply was intended.
A
slightly fuller explanation should be heard.
This
software was from Hewlett Packard and deals with holding forms on the printer
memory rather than passing the information to the printer each time the form is
required.
The
software was passed to me a few months ago by MS when it had arrived. He
suggested that I would be interested in taking a look at it. Again, it was
emphasised by MS only if I had the time. I have an interest in this type of
software and would have liked to have been able to work on it.
The
software is related to the Sanderson system. Originally, I was under the
impression that Control would be in charge of the production of all the NDR
documents under the new system. If this was to be the case, then it would be an
advantage for Control to learn how to use this software. As the Sanderson system
problems increased, I was told by DL that Control would not be needed to produce
any of the documentation. This would be done by the NDR section themselves.
I
was asked by MS at various points along the way as to how I was getting on with
the software but the answer I had to give each time is that I have not had the
time to take a good look at it. I did load it onto my machine but, with the
constant pressure on Control, it became less and less a priority as we would no
longer be producing the output.
When
DL asked about this software, he told me to return it to MS if I did not have
the time to take a look. This I did within a day or two, reluctantly, as I did
still want to take a look.
The
more appropriate place for this software is, of course, with the team generating
the output. MS could have asked for the software at any stage of the proceedings
as Control would not be involved with the production of this output but did not
do so. Only now does this surface as being a non co-operation with management
issue.
There
was no specific deadline given by MS for this from the day the software was
passed to me. There was no priority assigned to this software. MS knew that
Control would not be dealing with the output and should have given me more
feedback as to what was expected. As far as I was aware, there was no
expectation after learning that we would not be running the Sanderson
output.
Leave
booking and overtime notification arrangements
22. Why do you
think that you do not need to book Holidays with DL
first?
I
do know that I must.
Answer
correct.
23. Following
an incident where you didn't book leave with Dave Lickley you were told verbally
and a memo was sent dated 1 July 1998.
He
asked me to complete an Excel sheet for this purpose and I thought he looked at
it regularly. I put the holiday on this and asked DL at the same time. I have no
idea why he sent the memo. There may have been problems between moving from GM
to DL. GM let me ask him, then he'd put it in his diary. DL needs a memo. In all
my twenty years I have always done this.
This
“so-called” non co-operation with management is the result of an over reaction
by DL, as, unfortunately, is the case for many situations.
Booking
holidays has never been a problem on Control. The procedures are very informal
and friendly and have worked very well for many years. This was also the case
where I booked holidays with the former manager, Girish Mistry.
This
informal arrangement entails the good nature and common sense of the members of
staff employed on Control. All staff try to make sure that the section is going
to be reasonably staffed before booking leave. If the section staffing is low,
then I will usually refer them to the line manager to obtain his
acceptance.
Booking
my own leave was much the same. I would ask Girish if I could be off on certain
dates and he would usually agree and mark this off in his diary. This was never
a problem area before as I always make sure that my section was fully covered
before taking time off.
I
am sure that I also verbally asked DL for the days off at the end of August and
beginning of September 98. I made this request in June 98 giving plenty of
notice and making sure that the section would also be covered during this
time.
Also
around this time, because of the shortage of staff, prior to recruitment, I was
asked to give DL a list of the section holidays for the next 6 months. I did
this on an Excel workbook showing all of the holidays booked by all staff in
this period. My own holidays were also shown on that spreadsheet. DL had
constant access to this spreadsheet which I took as being the reference for the
next 6 months.
After
this, I was questioned about my holidays by DL. You have to remember that this
was in June and the holidays were not for 2 months. I explained the situation,
which at the time did not seem to be a problem. Then the letter arrived which
led to a very heavy-handed approach to booking holidays.
DL
stated in his management letter that as his two development officers were off on
one of the two days I had requested, he would have to cover both sections. This
was not the case as DL did not get involved at all with Control functions and
has little idea on how to deal with the majority of the functions. The Control
section has been well trained to look after the affairs of the sections
themselves while I am not at work.
To
have to come into work on that day, 2nd September, would have meant
to break up my holiday in the middle to attend work when the Control section
would have been well covered anyway. His approach to booking leave has left a
stain of unaccustomed formality which has detracted to the smooth working of the
sections.
Regardless
of my feelings about his approach to booking leave, I have nevertheless adopted
this method with DL as it was a request from management.
This was
just an example of DL stamping undue and excessive authority on a situation
which had run well for many years. A heavy handed approach like this was totally
unnecessary and created a bad feeling for all concerned.
24. A further
incident happened on 17 February 1999 when you did not formally request leave,
can you explain?
Chris
was asked and OK'ed it
I
was asked to tell an SO if DL was not there.
The
leave in question here was a ˝ day flexi which I had been thinking about since
earlier that week. I had not decided upon this until that morning. The section
was fully covered. I always ask the staff if there are any problems which needed
to be resolved.
After
making sure that everything was working well, I sat in with CN and mentioned
that I would not be at work that afternoon. MS substantiated this at a meeting
with DL saying that he heard me talking about this with CN on that morning. As
far as I remember, the Development section was adequately staffed as
well
I did not
send an e-mail on this occasion as DL would not receive it until he returned
from leave.
Why did
you not ask MS?
There
was nobody there to ask, you were not around the section was covered there was
no real need to tell someone.
MS was
not available at the time and I did not feel as though this was needed. I had
been asked by DL to ask an SO if he was not around. I did this by asking
CN.
25. Why does
this conflict with my note of 25.2.99 meeting where you said nobody was
about?
You
are getting mixed up with the first refund run. That is what I meant when I said
nobody was about
My reply
to this was that MS was getting his wires crossed with an e-mail I had sent.
This asked for a response to a query concerning the first live refund run on the
Sanderson system. When this run had been scheduled, no senior officer was
present all afternoon within the System section. This led to difficulties in
completing the refund run on the scheduled day.
26. An express
instruction was sent out on an E-mail 8 June 1998 requiring overtime working to
be requested/notified to Dave Lickley, you ignored this instruction by allowing
and doing overtime the next day without reference to Dave, can you
explain?
I
do not recall this incident. Sorry,
isn't this resolved?
In
the interview, I could not recall this but have since thought back and
remembered that this was due to a misunderstanding. It would be hard to tell DL
what we would be doing on a daily basis before the event as this depended on the
workload at that point in the day.
The
details of the overtime would be logged on the overtime sheet on the following
day.
27. But you
were spoken to about it by DL the following day?
I
still do not remember it
After
speaking to DL on the following day, it was realised by both DL and myself that
this was due to a misunderstanding. Our understanding was that we would mark up
the overtime activities on the following day. After speaking to DL, this became
the accepted routine. No problems after the initial misunderstanding.
This
is not an example of non co-operation with management requirements. I feel that
DL greatly over reacted to this, which was a misunderstanding felt by all of the
members of Control at that time and not just me. The problems here were due to
DL not thinking the procedures through properly in the first place and then
taking a heavy handed approach rather than admitting his lack of
clarity.
28. Other
Issues regarding colleagues outside the Section. Can you explain to us why there
are all these incidents to deal with
There are a lot!
I don’t
remember saying “there are a lot!”.
Notes
from management concur that this was actually said during the
interview
a)
Lorraine Hawkes - an incident where Lorraine felt she had to "beg" for
the store room key as staff needed access for the weekend, can you
explain?
I
do not recall this.
You were
described as obstructive
Oh
the incident over the storeroom key. It's our storeroom. I asked why she wanted it and to give us
a note for the inventory. I'd say
that to anyone. This was resolved
quickly and is no longer an issue.
This
has to be the most ridiculous example of what has been termed non co-operation
with management requirements.
Lorraine
arrived on Control and demanded the storeroom key. I just asked what she wanted
this for as the usual procedure was for my Control staff to put items in and
take items out of the storeroom and keep a note of the inventory numbers for our
records.
She
said, “Just give me the key”. I asked her again what she wanted it for. She then
said Dave Lickley had told her she could have it. I asked DL about this and
explained that Control needed to maintain the inventory. HB had been know just
to take items out and put items in without leaving a record of what had been
displaced.
DL
said he would make sure that this was done.
DL
did not seem to understand how our procedures worked.
These
situations arose from DL’s lack of understanding of our
procedures.
If
I did not question anyone’s intentions when they ask for the storeroom key, I
would not be performing my duty as custodian of the equipment within the Income
Unit. The same can be said of any Control staff. I am sure they would have
responded in the same way.
It
does seem as if I even sneeze the wrong way, then MS will take this as grounds
for a management interview.
The
effect of blowing up all these extremely minor instances to disciplinary
proportions is extremely demoralising and demotivating. That has been the method
that both MS and DL appear to have adopted for a very long period. It is credit
to the Control staff and myself that procedures are still working well and
efficiently even after this type of attitude.
b)
David Bacon - quote from the statement - please
explain?
A
one off incident, Francis Bacon and I are good friend again.
Francis
Bacon, I thought it was David.
Oh
yes
This
was a one-off incident where things needed to be clarified between Machine Room
and Control. This section had been accused off making errors which were actually
the fault of the Machine Room.
These
have not happened since and the problems have been resolved amicably. Working
relations are fine.
Again,
this has been blown up out of all proportion by management.
If
there is a situation which is affecting the smooth working of the Control
section, then I feel that I must act in the best interests of the section. It
was brought to my attention by various members of staff at the time that claims
were being made of Control mistakes which turned out to be errors on the part of
the Machine Room staff.
I
remember taking a phone call from the Machine Room, from David, who made a
comment about all of our errors. I replied that this was not the case and that
he should admit to any mistakes they make as I am sure Control staff would. This
caused a quick exchange which was sorted out very quickly. With the air cleared,
the relations between Control and the Machine Room were back to
normal.
I
feel that I have to support my staff when these issues are brought up. To deal
with these issues is part of my function as a Control team leader. If only I
could get the same type of support from my management, then things would go a
lot more smoothly.
The only
response is that if anyone makes a complaint, there is no support for my side of
the argument but I am always seen as the guilty party by MS. I cannot remember a
time when I was supported by my management.
c)
Julie Wear - quote from the letter - please
explain?
She
was complaining about my teams ability. I had to question this. Everything
resolved now though.
There
are not many only 4, these are not big incidents. I haven't smacked anyone in the
face. They were sorted in 5
minutes.
Martin
pointed out it took him a lot longer afterwards.
This
situation resulted from a phone call passed onto me by Miscellaneous regarding a
number of invoices which had apparently been sent out instead of being returned
to the user.
She
had previously spoken to Pretash Govan who informed her that we had a new member
of staff who may have made the mistake. I spoke to Ashraf, the new member of
staff to see if he was clear about the procedures. He was clear about the
procedures and said that he was sure that he would have returned the output to
the users as stated in our working practices.
There
had been occasions previously where the output had been passed to Miscellaneous
first via a pullout request and then posting errors had been made by other staff
in posting out the invoices. Other investigations have shown other explanations.
I am always slightly reluctant to accept blame for the members of the section
before investigating the incident.
The
point I made to Julie was that I talked to my staff and they were sure they had
sent the output in the appropriate way. Her reply was that she was sure the
fault was with this section. I did apologise if this had happened but could not
lay the blame on any staff as they deal with this type of output every day and
are familiar with the procedures.
I
did suggest in an e-mail that where there were very sensitive issues, then the
output could be collected from the Income Control section direct and I think
this offer has been taken up on various occasions.
She
did agree that, overall, the service which was being provided was excellent.
I
put an additional working practice into place where her output would be sent in
a sealed envelope in future which would highlight that additional care should be
taken and that no third party could open the contents without breaking the
envelope.
These
procedures have been adopted and work very well.
My
efforts here were to make procedures better and more efficient. This has now
been used by MS as a non co-operation with management issue.
It
makes me wonder if there is any point is making these efforts to make procedures
on Control more efficient and effective when all these efforts are just going to
be used in a future management interview.
d)
Benefit invoices with N Woodhouse. Refer to the Girish Mistry incident
re. general attitude and behaviour.
Don’t
remember this one, although it will be resolved now
I
would like to see a copy of this letter. From what I remember in the interview,
it dated back to Aug 97 which is
two years ago. I cannot remember seeing this before but did remember the
so-called incident which may have sparked it off. If this is to be used as an
indicator of my general attitude and behaviour, I would like to be able to
respond to the letter itself.
When
Control took over Miscellaneous output, the procedures were found to be out of
date and very inefficient. One of the many changes that were made to these
procedures was to use Internal Mail to deliver the HB invoices. Nick said he
wanted them bringing down to HB. We replied that they would be either left in
Control for them to pick up or would be delivered by Internal Mail.
The
internal mail was adopted and has worked very well since it was put into place.
There
was no real problem with this interaction. The problem was when someone
complained to management and they took the line that Control are always wrong.
This has been the case throughout my stay under MS. Everyone else is right and
what we are doing is wrong simply because someone complains. There has been
little support from MS although the procedures which have been developed have
shown many benefits.
Copy
of memo sent to Joseph with this statement 30 June
1999
29. Looking at
the statement from G Mistry, it says you should work on relationships. This was
2 years ago and still these occur. Why?
No
answer I can recall
I cannot
say I have seen the document which I was shown. I do remember talking to Girish
about this issue and have made great efforts with all interactions since
then.
The
following was added from JB's second amendment to the 1st statement
received on 16 July 1999
The
letter from GM dated 13 th August 1997
I
cannot remember ever seeing a copy of this letter but I think I can answer some
of the points raised and hopefully, show a more balanced view of the events
which led up to this letter.
1
. The first
line "once again the Misc. Revenues
staff have voiced their concerns to about your approachability". Although this sentence does not make
sense, I will try to reply as to what 1 believe the issues may have
been.
2. This was
certainly not all Misc. Revenues staff who voiced their concerns. I suspect that
this point was raised by one individual who had the ear of his manager, who then
proceeded to pass this onto MS.
3. As with all
other complaints, whether valid or not, MS always took the view that Control
were in the wrong and 1 have no doubt that this was yet another example. Instead of investigating what had
happened and the reason behind this or giving support to his Control team, MS
does always like to hide behind these types of
letters.
4. This was
around the time that Control had taken over the responsibility of the
miscellaneous output. This was a
decision taken by MS that Control should deal with the Miscellaneous output on a
daily basis.
5. The method
used by Miscellaneous was very dated.
To have taken the methodology on board within Control would have put our
own methods back by around 1 0 years.
6.
I
set about designing a computerised system that would streamline the
process. This was employed and has
been successfully in halving the amount of time taken to deal with the output as
well as creating a database for any statistics needed. There is literally no paper used in our
side of the operation.
7.
Miscellaneous
managers appeared to be against Control having any involvement in their system
and this news was greeted by them with a certain
resentment.
8.
The
original request from Miscellaneous was for Control to duplicate the original
practices that had been used by them for many years. The changes resulted in considerable
savings overall with increased efficiency but it was a difficult task to
persuade the Miscellaneous managers of their worth as they were very ingrained
in the way things had been done previously.
9.
I
certainly cannot remember a case where I have spent 20 minutes on the phone with
any miscellaneous member of staff while I have been on Control. I do not or have
not, spent more time on an issue than is necessary.
10.
The
"going around the houses" phrase does strike a bell. From what 1 can recall, when setting up
the computerisation for the miscellaneous system, 1 noticed certain
anomalies. One related to the way
that a third party document asking for an account is set up by the Miscellaneous
section. In this procedure, the
document would arrive in Miscellaneous and the on-line system would set up the
account but no record would ever be kept of the documentation that was used to
set it up. This was returned to the
user without keeping a copy. This
would mean that incorrect details had been set up, there was no copy to refer
to.
11.
I
pointed this out to Taras Fortuna, a Senior Officer and he did not understand
why this was the case. I thought I would try to investigate this as it seemed to
be a very poor control in their procedures.
12.
I
then asked one of the Miscellaneous clerks about this procedure and they were
also puzzled to why it worked in this way.
13.
I
was very surprised that when I asked Patrick Rushgrove about this apparent
malpractice, he became very agitated and told me not to investigate this any
further.
14.
Of
course, I was surprised but did what he asked. He did use the phrase "going around the
houses". I suspect that he must have contacted MS who, no surprise, again took
the view that Control were totally in the wrong and did not follow it up with
myself or any of the Control staff who also had the same question as myself
regarding this issue.
15.
The
Conflict regarding the priority between the Ctax Reminders and Misc. output. 1
cannot remember any problems with this apart from the Ctax Reminders being given
priority in posting out when there was a Ctax Reminder run. This was an instruction given by John
Hawkes at the time and the priorities needed to be resolved at management
level. The instruction was from the
Assistant Director for the reminders to have priority.
16.
I
don't understand where this comes into the original subject of
approachability.
17.
The
Internal Mail. When we took the
Miscellaneous system over on Control, it was found that invoices were
distributed by hand throughout Britannia House. This was a very inefficient method of
accomplishing a task which the Internal Mail had been designed
for.
18.
The
invoices were sent by internal mail from that point on. After a few months, a slight problem
occurred with the internal mail delivery of the invoices for Nick
Woodhouse. This was reported to
Mike Porter in Miscellaneous who told me that he wanted the invoices delivering
by hand.
19.
This system was very time consuming
as the invoices would be taken to the different sections within HB and then mail
would be picked up from HB and taken back to
Miscellaneous.
20.
My
response to Mike was that it was no longer possible to continue the method which
Miscellaneous had used as a far simpler method had been devised. Control simply did not have the time to
deliver these items by hand. Mike
replied that Miscellaneous had the time to do it so why didn't Control. This was a fact, as the increased
workload within Control did not allow us to do this. The methods which we employed at that
time are still working efficiently and 1 feel that sometimes you can't please
everyone in getting a section to work at its optimum.
21.
Girish also refers to the
"sager is still continuing 3 weeks later'. I have to admit that I have never had
the opportunity to be involved in a sager.
22.
Problems
in dealing with the output. I have always been reluctant to accept blame for
these problems until I am convinced that Control are at fault. There is a reason for
this.
23.
Patrick
Rushgrove has been known to call around to Control and complain that output was
posted out to the users rather than being returned. On investigation, it was found that the
output is first passed around to Miscellaneous and it is their staff who post
out the invoices.
24.
Other
instances showed that pullouts have been requested for invoices and the invoices
are then sent out incorrectly by miscellaneous staff.
25.
Other
investigations have shown similar results
26.
These
type of incidents has led me to be slightly reluctant when blame is passed onto
Control staff. 1 do admit though that when you deal with thousands of invoices,
it is possible that mistakes can be made.
Procedures are always kept as tight and as updated as
possible.
27.
I
do not understand what the alleged problems in dealing with the dispatch
invoices and those marked for return have to do with the original issue raised
by this letter of approachability.
28.
I
am certain that the direction in this letter came from MS, although probably
written by GM.
29.
Here
is another example of where MS is unwilling to support his Control team. This has always been the case since I
can remember. It makes it very
difficult to work efficiently when your own manager is unwilling to back your
decisions.
30.
Overall,
these were teething troubles in the implementation of the Miscellaneous system
under Control and the resentment by Miscellaneous managers to accept
this.
31.
Despite
this, the transfer has worked very well as have the procedures and relations are
good between the sections.
32.
Girish
also mentions " and the manor you handle situations". I have never lived in a
manor.
33.
MS
has resurrected this letter from the archives to try to show that 1 have a
history of non co-operation but the truth is that these issues would not be
raised if he showed more support as a manager for his staff. His lack of any resolve causes these to
be made into bigger issues in the first place.
30. These
issues are not isolated incidents, can you explain your conduct (refer to other
incidents as appropriate).
People
say things to you and the incidents are blown up out of all proportion, they are
all resolved now
I do not
consider my conduct to be any worse or better than anyone else. I am reasonably
friendly to all and make efforts to keep things running smoothly. From these
four “incidents” quoted, I am certain that far worse things happen within Income
Unit and they are resolved very quickly. MS and DL are blowing as much as
possible out of proportion.
31. Why did
they need resolving?
As
team leader I have to make sure things are working correctly. These are about
control procedures and the need to make things run more efficiently.
As
answered.
32. Do you
understand that as a Team Leader responsible for staff that you have an
additional responsibility to set examples and to carry out reasonable Management
instructions appropriately and within a reasonable
time?
Yes
and yes
I
have a very efficient team and everybody works well.
As
answered.
33. What about
the efficiency of relationships.
OK
now in his opinion
Apart
from those with MS and DL which have led to the current problems. These problems
are not due to myself but to the heavy handed approach
taken.
The
Management Interview was now adjourned.
The
Management Interview reconvened at 2.00pm.
The
following questions were repeated:-
Sanderson
Software
15. I asked for
you view on the Sanderson inspection procedure on 2/2/99. You did not respond so I followed this
up with some alterations on 8/2/99.
These procedures involved control running various jobs, why did you not
respond to this?
16. Once this
became an issue you met with DL in MS' office for approx. 3 hours and said you
thought he was joking. What did you
find was amusing about this?
Joseph
produced a typed statement that he read out (attached). Joseph reiterated that he had had more
time to consider the answer to these questions and would wish to do so for the
others.
It was
agreed that the notes of the meeting would be typed up and a copy sent to Joseph
who would amend any areas of accuracy from the notes of the meeting and produce
separate additional information as necessary on a separate sheet of paper for
management to consider.
The notes
would be sent to Joseph on Monday.
Joseph to
E-mail Tim on Wednesday with an indication of when he would be able to return
the notes.
Following
Management's consideration of the notes and any additional information a further
interview would probably be necessary.
The
interview concluded at 2.30pm.
The
following questions & comments were add in JB's document received on 16 July
1999
The
Ongoing 1st Transcript: My concerns
The
original management letter refers to the management concerns about my supposed
non-co-operation with management.
Some of the questions raised in the transcript, although 1 have tried to
answer them as best as 1 can, do not appear to relate to this
issue.
1
. Would it be possible for Ms
to give me the reason why each question was asked, as many of them do not appear
to have gone against management requirements. For example, why was the question asked
regarding the CUK3? The explanation
had already been given that this had become too complex. Why does MS think that this is non
co-operation with management? If he
thinks this, then the reasons should be stated. Otherwise, this should be highlighted in
the transcript as not being relevant.
2.
I
answered these questions because 1 was asked to but 1 cannot understand why many
of these questions were even asked.
3.
It
has been brought to my attention that in further disciplinary events, this
transcript would be used by management as evidence.
4.
In
the light of this, I do not consider that the transcript to be complete or in
line with the original concerns.
There are questions here that do not relate to the breaking of any
management rules or requests. Why
did I need to be asked these questions and why did you feel that you needed
answers to events do not relate to your concerns?
5.
The
questions that were asked fell within certain events that may or may not have
taken place. The questions
themselves add bulk to the document but if they were taken out, the areas which
were misunderstood or taken out of all proportion by MS can be more accurately
dealt with.
6.
The
answers that were originally documented by management are no indication of what
was said at the interview.
Management have stated that this was actually said. The parts which they chose to document
are very brief and when 1 have read through them leave me with the question of
who said this. I certainly do not express myself in that
way.
7.
Although
the management-documented answers have been left in the transcript, it is not
accurate to say that they resemble the actual answers given. Any words or phrases can be taken out of
context, and were taken out of context to make it seem as though there was no
reasonable explanation for the questions asked. I have had to spend many hours
of my time to bring the answers more in line with what was
said.
8. I
have taken another look at the transcript and feel that a closer inspection of
this document is needed along with the original intent of the questions and why
they were even there.
9. There
is also the question of where these questions came from. Most of the issues here did not involve
MS in any way. They were passed
onto MS by DL without seeking any clarification of them in the first
instance. Even though MS had not
been involved with these supposed events, there was no attempt to document the
background which was needed to answer the question.
10.
I
have been told that I should comply with management instructions and that there
is a need to conclude the investigation as soon as practicable. 1 do not wish to
appear to be obstructive but my concerns in this are genuine and 1 only wish to
be as thorough as needed in giving answers to any management questions asked of
me. In the light of this and taking
the above concerns into account, 1 will be ready to sign the transcript of the
lst interview when you
require.
I
would be grateful if you could attach this as an appendix to the transcript so
that these concerns will be read by anyone reading the transcript
itself.