 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
First, sorry for the rambling and vagueness but you will hopefully understand by the end.
A department within an organisation has put together 3 proposals for saving money, they all involve headcount reductions and/or changes to hours and/or changes to individuals pay grades. These proposals were shown to the employees of the department and then given to the board of the organisation who would then decide which option to go for. The employees had no input to the proposals but were asked when the options were presented to them if they had any ideas to suggest them. This was on the Thursday prior to the options being given to the board on Monday!
The employees met with their union rep following the submission of the options to the board.
The question that I have is the union rep made it very clear that the employees were not to go public with this as it is still in the consultation phase and if they did so then could be dismissed. When the proposals were given to the department there was no mention that the information was confidential, secret or should not be shared. Are the union reps words true or would going public with said information be legally allowable?
The changes to the department involved has massive knock-on implications to several other departments within the organisation, none of which are aware of the proposed changes other than the usual rumour mill.
Going public may have far reaching implications for the organisation and the people who are in charge as the changes impact millions of people, both directly and indirectly.
Feel free to email for further info but due to the nature of the request at no time shall I give details of the organisation.
Edited.
Anything that could affect a companies share price needs to have a degree of confidentiality around it in order to prevent insider dealing. I'd check that there isn't some general clause in your contract to that end, whether or not it was specifically mentioned this time around.
Not about me so no access to contract to check small print and knowing who my employer is wouldn't change anything, this is genuinely on behalf of a friend who is in bits at the moment.
Are the union reps words true or would going public with said information be legally allowable?
Legally allowable
Legal to then sack you
Think about work and there are lots of information you could legally make available and have breached the terms and conditions of your employment
Secondly very little is gained when competitors know you have issues and it can affect suppliers and purchasers confidence
Why tell others when the company has not decided what to do? In due time they will be told formally though the rumour mill is no doubt in full swing
Shit for your mate but telling folk does not achieve anything nor make their plight any better
Edited accordingly, Votchy.
Edited accordingly, Votchy
Many thanks 😀
Legally allowable
Legal to then sack youThink about work and there are lots of information you could legally make available and have breached the terms and conditions of your employment
Secondly very little is gained when competitors know you have issues and it can affect suppliers and purchasers confidence
Why tell others when the company has not decided what to do? In due time they will be told formally though the rumour mill is no doubt in full swing
Would this be the same, if say, said organisation were public not private sector?
Not Manchester Fire and Rescue by any chance? News today that the poor buggers are all going to be sacked and invited to reapply for less jobs on worse conditions.
Public Sector?
Did anyone sign an NDA or is it assumed that your contract covers non-disclosure?
no, but similar scenarioNot Manchester Fire and Rescue by any chance?
I don't know but assume notDid anyone sign an NDA or is it assumed that your contract covers non-disclosure?
sounds like your union rep is passing on a message from the bosses and that info should not have been given to you at all.
Personally I wouldn't disclose it other than perhaps in very general terms
sounds like your union rep is passing on a message from the bosses and that info should not have been given to you at all.
So you think that the decision was going to be made without the department being aware of it?
The scenario was bosses gave 3 options to employees that were being presented to board, board would choose 1, this then given to employees and formal 1 to 1's arranged to discuss options so from what I was told it appears the bosses wanted the department to know as it was a formal meeting of all employees.
Yes - I think the three options should not have been given to the workforce. Extremely odd that it was. I have never heard of anything similar. I am 90% sure it was a mistake and there is frantic ass covering going on
*bump* for the early risers
Legally allowableLegal to then sack you
This.
Agree, sounds very odd you were given sight of specific proposal options (rather than just invited to submit cost-savings suggestions), who gave you that info - the union rep or HR/management? If the former then the follow-on threat about disclosing the info does sound like ass-covering.
The original info was given by management to the whole department at an official meeting. The union rep advice was given at a meeting the day after the proposals had been given to the board to decide. The comment about being sacked for going public was made by the union rep citing it was 'not in the public interest for this to be disclosed' and that as the board had not yet made a decision it was still within the consultation phase so not something that should be discussed outside of work. However, as management employees are already being interviewed for their positions (currently 16 managers and only 7 positions available), surely it has gone past the consultation phase and some decision must have been made, albeit not shared with the wider workforce. As the cost savings proposed have massive implications to the public then surely it IS in the public's interest to be made aware of them and the advice seems to me to be 'keep it quiet until it is too late for anything to change then let the world know'. The information given to the workforce seems very misleading as when you look at the letter they received, the meeting proposed 20% cut made up of 10% each year for 2 years, however, the figures printed in the letter show a 20% cut in headcount and then also a 20% reduction in hours for the reduced workforce so in effect a 40% cut in the service this department provides based on contracted hours, even greater reduction in the service provided when you take in to consideration most of the workforce are doing approx 10% above their contracted hours without recompense and without this being recorded!