The grievance response

Private & Confidential
18th May 2007

Dear Mike,

You submitted your grievances on the 20th April. As per my suggestion and your agreement, I have dealt with your grievances under the modified grievance procedure.

I have now had the opportunity to do a full and thorough investigation through a series of interviews and discussions with key people listed in your grievance submission and your response to my email dated on the 25th April – subject: Investigation start-up.

I will outline my findings below as well as any actions I have felt necessary to take.

1------------- Performance Reviews just not done -----------------------------------
The problem: Ts & Cs require performance reviews every year, and 6 months after any job code change, transfer to another account and at the completion of a major project. This was NOT done.
Ethical flaw: Lying (not doing what Ts&Cs said is meant to happen) and dereliction of responsibility
The evidence: I have only had formal reviews in 2003,4,5 and 2006. This means I had only 4 in 9 years. PMP 2002 scores blank – old boss (thus not done!)
No PMP after either job code changes.
No PMP on transfer from Bechtel to BAE or from BAE to old-boss, or from him to Fleet.
No PMP after completion of DCA project
Category: Various manager irresponsibility
References: Internal T&Cs

As part of my investigation I interviewed – HolidayStealer, Bayleaf & Flakey. I could not interview Bully or GoogleFool has they have left Toxic.

Your initial statement quoting your Toxic Ts & Cs does seem to be unfounded. I have attached a copy of the latest UK Employee handbook for your review. This is moot. This is entirely separate to T’s and C’s. We are ONLY talking about T’s and C’s not the content of the handbook or indeed future handbooks.

Under section 1.7 – Performance Management. This clearly outlines the expected process that Toxic needs to be followed which aligns to a three phased approach.

Whilst best practice might [might is an opinion] suggest a performance review after completion of a major project, change of account or six months after a job code change, at no point in your T&C’s does it state this.[Yes it does. My copy of the T’s & Cs, dated 1996, version 6.0, does so page 6, section 6. This is the copy I signed and thus the one I used to work to.]


During my interview with HolidayStealer, I discuss your grievance about the blank score received for your 2002 appraisal.

I am sure you will appreciate that having to relate back to an incident over 5 years may not be as accurate as one would like. HolidayStealer’s recollection of this incident indicates that he believes that you were registered as New to Job, which does exempts you for the PMP process for an expected 6 month period. HolidayStealer and I were unable to refer back to your records in the PMP tool as you are no longer within the system and I have not received feedback for the PMP administrators in the US at the time of writing this report. Excuse mode – I don’t care – it is just an example of process not being followed.

In summary, from the feedback I received from your Team Leaders or Managers who I was able to interview, it appears that the PMP process had been followed allowing for verbal feedback during the year and a written annual review at the end of the year. Oh no it wasn’t. Where is the proof for the years 2000 and 2001. Oh, there is none. So that's ok then.

THEIR VERDICT: Unfounded because our new 2006 handbook says we review performance throughtout the year. Oh and your T's & C's don't say what you're on about. And the US are too busy to answer about 2002's records.

2 ------------------------Pay for Performance is bullshit-----------------------------
The problem: In Ts & Cs, page 4: “…pay for performance policy is based on the belief that people should be rewarded based on individual contributions that add value to our customers’ business.” – has a fundamental flaw – performance is NOT measured in a consistent or professional manner.

Ethical flaw: Lying – they just don’t measure performance
Any PMP involves asking “your mates” to fill in a PTC and asking them to give you good scores.
person who is your line manager has no idea what your performance has been the previous year.
The Evidence: Competence categories defy scoring,
“relationship building” and “market insight” or “Ethical conduct”, “knowledge of Toxic”, “knowledge of metrics” etc.
Category: Corporate policy = ineffective performance review program
References: Internal T&Cs

TOXIC does stand by its commitment to pay for performance, however I would agree that some corporate processes may well have flaws in them but as they mature these flaws are corrected or indeed amend.

In your evidence you highlight identifying “your mates” to fill in a PTC and asking them to give you good scores.

If you approach the PTC selection with that attitude then the whole process will give you little benefit. Handbag!! The idea of identifying PTC candidates is for them to provide your leader with candid feedback on your performance to date. This feedback will allow your leader to identify possible areas for development or improvement. - That “idea” is based on the ideal world that people will be honest and candid. Life is not an ideal world and this is not the reality. People can and DO ask their mates. Get over it.

The PTC process also impacts your second statement about your line manager having no idea of what your performance has been. In today’s leveraged working environment it is increasingly difficult to get a true reflection on someone’s performance that you never physically meet No shit Sherlock . This barrier can be mitigated by increased communication with the individual or a greater view of the individual’s output. However often leaders will request feedback from those that are working closer to the individual i.e. work peers, Project Leader or sometimes the client themselves via the PTC process. Hence the importance of the PTC process and selection policy.

I can certainly agree with your third statement, however as the PMP process has matured over the years, the tool now allows a leader to leave certain categories out of the scoring by allowing a None Applicable against them. The decision to leave certain elements out of the scoring is your leaders. During your annual review you had every right to ask your leader how he / she justified any given score.

THEIR VERDICT: It's not perfect, but it's maturing like a 30 year old cheese. We stand by our cheese.

3 ------------------------------- PMP scoring is farcical ----------------------------------

The problem: PMPs scoring inconsistent to the point of being ridiculous thanks to no checking of scoring or training of managers
Ethical flaw: Fraud: Making it totally impossible get high PMP scores
The Evidence: PMP 2003, objective 2 – one omission resulted in a score of 2/9. Mathematically 1 error is 1 ninth, i.e. the correct score was 8/9
Objective 4 –The standard was to enter all hours by noon Monday, yet doing so gave a max score of 5 out of 9. Why?!!!

Category: Poor corporate policy
References: SAP PMP records

Unfortunately I was unable to interview GoogleFool as he no longer works for TOXIC. [He’s quit so that makes it all OK. It was just his crap mathematical flaws despite having a phD.]

Any goals within the PMP process need to be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) to describe and quantify an outcome and to establish accountability.

Here are the five characteristics of SMART goals:
You should work with your leader to develop individual goals that have the SMART characteristics and include a clear description of the goal, how the goal will be measured, and the success target.

You should have had sight of your goals at the beginning of the year and voiced your concerns at that time rather at the end of the year or indeed now.

THEIR VERDICT: You I shouda moaned at the time about GoogleFool's scoring methods.

4 --------------------- Equal pay -----------------
The Problem: Salary is less than other permanent employees doing same job
Ethical flaw: Unfair (unequal) pay policy
The Evidence: TonyT, team lead of Front Office vs me, team lead of Front Office
Category: Corporate policy
References: Supposedly only applies to different genders!

Please refer to section 1.6.2 of your Employee hand book.

Within TOXIC, employee compensation is confidential because an employee’s pay is a personal matter between that person and his or her leader. Confidentiality of salaries enables leaders to reward their staff in a direct relationship to their individual performance without creating antagonism or discussion amongst peers. Individual compensation therefore is confidential, and should be discussed only with your leader, or other senior leaders in your organisation, unless a regulation requires otherwise.

[can you add something here about Tony Thomas’ role being more senior or him being more experience? If not then put in something vague like … Whilst I don’t wish to comment extensively on your salary vs Tony Thomas’ salary, I would like to make the general comment that an individual employee’s salary takes into account a number of different factors – performance, experience, skill and knowledge to name but a few.

Note: The blue is the “sanitized” version of the truth from HR, written as if Neil wrote it, whilst the red is from Dick's Cheese, the author (allegedly) of this report. Hmmm. The wonders of electronic ink. Shame they don’t even know how to use Word. Too incompetent to cover up their own incompetence.

THEIR VERDICT: Pay is confidential. How dare you even mention it.


5 ---------------- Holiday stolen ------------
The Problem: Suspension of holiday pay of 20 days, from 10/7/02 – 11/01/02. HR gave 5 days back.
Ethical flaw: Theft – Holiday reduction is equivalent in law to with-holding of pay (theft)
The Evidence: HolidayStealer’s letter.
Category: 1 manager’s decision
References: n/a

I am sure you will appreciate that this point in your grievance is particularly difficult to investigate due the time that has elapsed and the evidence at hand. As you have now left TOXIC I only have your actual grievance statement and your email stating that there was no prior contact from either Gareth or Tony, however I did speak to Tony and I would agreed that the whole situation should have been dealt in a more appropriate manner.

I don’t wish to go into the details of the series of events for this summary. I will however stress that there was a complete breakdown of communication on both sides.

HolidayStealer said that you did not have a land line at your home address and stresses [Well he would wouldn’t he. That does not alter the fact of the utter illegality of his later, ultimate behaivour.] that he called you on numerous occasions on your mobile phone and left voicemails, but you did not respond to any.

I asked Tony whether any other communications channels were tried such as a letter or a physical meeting and Tony admitted that none of these were tried. However it is the employee’s responsibility to contact his / her leader when he / she is not available or attending work. I do not think it is appropriate for an employee to remain at home without written permission from his / her leader to do so.

THEIR VERDICT: It could have been dealt with more appropriately but it wasn't. You should have been at work. The fact that there was no desk, PC or seat for you is irrelevant.

MY VERDICT: Suspending holiday with or without any warning is equivalent to taking salary without permission and quite, quite illegal.

...time for a rest. 3 more grievances to go yet, but it's the early hours now!!!