Will
06-02-2009, 10:40
It's really silly but the following email wound me up a little:
All - A more or less impossible one to call this, but after much deliberation have decided upon the following in relation to the payment for attendance/non-attendance on Monday 2nd February and Tuesday 3rd February :
1. All employees (including management) that were absent who live OUTSIDE a 3 mile radius of Nine Elms branch are to be paid basic hours for Monday 2nd February. This is to be paid as AUTHORISED ABSENCE, not sickness. This only applies to employees who followed procedures and phoned/text to notify us of their inability to get to work. Those that just didn't show are not to be paid.
2. All employees (including management) that were absent on Monday February 2nd who live INSIDE a 3 mile radius of Nine Elms branch are to be interviewed in order to try and identify the genuine cases from the inevitable few that blatantly took advantage of the situation. If the interviewing manager feels that the absence wasn't genuine, the employee is not to be paid. Again, those that are to be paid must be paid as authorised absence.
3. All staff (including management) that did attend on Monday February 2nd are to be recognised for their commitment with the offer of a meal up to the value of £50. This token of our appreciation will be reclaimed through a CA3 expense form upon production of receipt.
4. All staff that did not attend on Tuesday February 3rd because of the weather are NOT to be paid.
Please note that entering into debate on individual cases is not to take place. Any employee (including management) that disagree with any part of the above listed four points must take up their individual case through the Grievance Procedure. As stated, this is an impossible one to call due to the uniqueness of the situation, but my view is that this is the fairest possible method to deal with it.
So I'm not committed? Yet I was up at 5am as usual spent ages in the cold and snow trying to clear my car to get it on the road. I walked to 3 different stations on different lines to try and get me into work walking on slippery pavements and in freezing conditions... by 9-10am I just had no way of getting away from where I live, I even got a text message after speaking to my boss telling me not to bother (incidently he was stuck too though he lives in Brighton).
Yet those that somehow managed to make it in, were put up in a hotel, were fed and watered (and I don't just mean water) offered some clothing and now a meal up to £50 because they were more committed?!
How the **** is that fair? And why is this winding me up so much? I understand he's had to make a decision, but his wording leaves much to be desired and maybe it was a genuine piece of bad wording on his behalf, however I feel a bit grated by them.
Am I being a silly cow? (and yes I did say cow).
I'll get paid, as I live 7 miles away and did make it in on Tuesday. However it's not the point.
All - A more or less impossible one to call this, but after much deliberation have decided upon the following in relation to the payment for attendance/non-attendance on Monday 2nd February and Tuesday 3rd February :
1. All employees (including management) that were absent who live OUTSIDE a 3 mile radius of Nine Elms branch are to be paid basic hours for Monday 2nd February. This is to be paid as AUTHORISED ABSENCE, not sickness. This only applies to employees who followed procedures and phoned/text to notify us of their inability to get to work. Those that just didn't show are not to be paid.
2. All employees (including management) that were absent on Monday February 2nd who live INSIDE a 3 mile radius of Nine Elms branch are to be interviewed in order to try and identify the genuine cases from the inevitable few that blatantly took advantage of the situation. If the interviewing manager feels that the absence wasn't genuine, the employee is not to be paid. Again, those that are to be paid must be paid as authorised absence.
3. All staff (including management) that did attend on Monday February 2nd are to be recognised for their commitment with the offer of a meal up to the value of £50. This token of our appreciation will be reclaimed through a CA3 expense form upon production of receipt.
4. All staff that did not attend on Tuesday February 3rd because of the weather are NOT to be paid.
Please note that entering into debate on individual cases is not to take place. Any employee (including management) that disagree with any part of the above listed four points must take up their individual case through the Grievance Procedure. As stated, this is an impossible one to call due to the uniqueness of the situation, but my view is that this is the fairest possible method to deal with it.
So I'm not committed? Yet I was up at 5am as usual spent ages in the cold and snow trying to clear my car to get it on the road. I walked to 3 different stations on different lines to try and get me into work walking on slippery pavements and in freezing conditions... by 9-10am I just had no way of getting away from where I live, I even got a text message after speaking to my boss telling me not to bother (incidently he was stuck too though he lives in Brighton).
Yet those that somehow managed to make it in, were put up in a hotel, were fed and watered (and I don't just mean water) offered some clothing and now a meal up to £50 because they were more committed?!
How the **** is that fair? And why is this winding me up so much? I understand he's had to make a decision, but his wording leaves much to be desired and maybe it was a genuine piece of bad wording on his behalf, however I feel a bit grated by them.
Am I being a silly cow? (and yes I did say cow).
I'll get paid, as I live 7 miles away and did make it in on Tuesday. However it's not the point.