Sign a warning letter?

R13... said:
Doesn't sound like a hearing. If it's a hearing the chairman has to ask if you want representation. Otherwise the whole thing will get thrown out at the CCMA
Click to expand...
It is either a meeting or an enquiry. In both cases he can have a representative. If it was still in the informal stage then an outside party would not be brought in to mediate yet. The onus would pass to the GM's boss...
 
Dolby said:
Thanks guys.

Another update (apologies for the long thread - but maybe it can assist someone)

HR phones and says as I'm appealing the warnings, process is going to get someone from SEESA to be a 'neutral' person and hear both sides to see the next step.

Someone tells me they're going to make me an offer to just leave, based on their experience, as I've become a nuisance. Guess they thought I'd just quiver and fall over?

Anyhow, when I asked if I can have a representative, they said nope. I will however get this in writing

Googling http://www.seesa.co.za confirms this :


We currently protect and promote the interests of over 35 000 South African business owners and employers.*SEESA*has an in-house team of over 250 legal advisors
Click to expand...

are you sure this isnt a hearing?
It sounds like a hearing, they have legal steps though they have to take when doing this, which sounds like they havent.

They have to notify you 48 hours in advance of the hearing, give you rights to call witnesses or have representation etc.
The hearing usually has a neutral party to go over both sides. They then make a recommendation to the company, the company cannot go harsher than the recommendation...

Thats my experience with it (although mine is from the company side)

In any case......why not take the packge they offer and come to us :)
 
All the best with this.

Please keep us updated, this is a fascinating and scary look into the corporate grinder and I'm sure it will provide valuable information and insight for others.
 
And yet another update :

I requested additional information from her and received a fairly emotionally charged email back. I can see from the tone that it was sent in anger and without much thought given. Great for me, as she contradicts herself from line to line and more importantly, contracts what was said in the warning letter ... :)

Thing is surely there is recourse of I get to the meeting with the lawyer and they say 'oops - my bad. Appeal accepted and no more warning letter'? Surely they can't simply ignore he fact? I'm worried they say 'sorry' and leave it.

I have lost all trust confidence and trust in my own management after this incident and there must be another outcome ?
 
Old school General Manager's 101 :
1. When starting a new job, fire someone
2. .....
 
Last edited:
beans100 said:
Old school General Manager's 101 :
1. When starting a new job, fire someone
2. .....
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that I'm not going down, but I'll certainly make her think twice about starting a new job and firing someone to prove something. Something tells me the company may not be too happy at the thought of potentially losing 6-12 months salary
 
Dolby said:
Thing is surely there is recourse of I get to the meeting with the lawyer and they say 'oops - my bad. Appeal accepted and no more warning letter'? Surely they can't simply ignore he fact? I'm worried they say 'sorry' and leave it.

I have lost all trust confidence and trust in my own management after this incident and there must be another outcome ?
Click to expand...
The first aim of any labour relations issue is restorative and not punitive measures. Your recourse, if the independent mediator does not make the recommendation, would be to follow your inhouse grievance process and request an apology.
 
:(

While an apology is great, I cannot work there going forward

But I guess that I need to see what the outcome is. I'd hope a separation agreement that meets mine and employers requirements.

Thanks MickeyD
 
HavocXphere said:
Employers like issuing warning letters in fast succession, so the raw count isn't always a fair representation.

Most employee manuals are written in a way that 100% of employees break rules regularly, so if HR is determined they can probably write up 3 warning letters for any employee they like. e.g. Suppose the building has doors protected by access cards. Do your work & go home. Everyone happy. If HR is on a mission to fire your though, they'll pull your access logs & discover you deserted your post early 9 times this year...
Click to expand...

Sigh, yes if HR or management want you gone they will do everything in their power to get rid of you. Horrible place to be...
 
UPDATE : They've set the SEESA lawyer date for afternoon of 27 Aug. A few people I chatted to said it that it may not even happen because she's clearly in the wrong and the lawyer may have said telephonically 'rather just drop it'. However, it is set so maybe she feels she has something OR planning on offering me to leave?

Can't remember if I added what I think the major bit in this thread, but the warning letter states : 'Unprepared for a meeting. This after I sent you an email with instruction on what to prepare. Unacceptable you did not read my email'

I requested this email or date multiple times - including in the meeting where I was given the warning. I was even told she's send it after I signed'. Eventually a few days late when I asked again, I received 'To be clear this was NOT an email but an actual presentation' She's basing her warning on this email which is no where ?

In the same letter of I pointed out a was forced, she says : 'To be clear, you were NOT forced to sign. You asked for 24 hours and were declined' That's as clear as mud to me and she's trying to get out of the procedural part that was done wrong.

I see her using her coerced witness though
 
Dolby said:
UPDATE : They've set the SEESA lawyer date for afternoon of 27 Aug. A few people I chatted to said it that it may not even happen because she's clearly in the wrong and the lawyer may have said telephonically 'rather just drop it'. However, it is set so maybe she feels she has something OR planning on offering me to leave?

Can't remember if I added what I think the major bit in this thread, but the warning letter states : 'Unprepared for a meeting. This after I sent you an email with instruction on what to prepare. Unacceptable you did not read my email'

I requested this email or date multiple times - including in the meeting where I was given the warning. I was even told she's send it after I signed'. Eventually a few days late when I asked again, I received 'To be clear this was NOT an email but an actual presentation' She's basing her warning on this email which is no where ?

In the same letter of I pointed out a was forced, she says : 'To be clear, you were NOT forced to sign. You asked for 24 hours and were declined' That's as clear as mud to me and she's trying to get out of the procedural part that was done wrong.

I see her using her coerced witness though
Click to expand...

She isn't the type of person you want to be working with. I wish you the best of luck in the process, though. She seems like a mean ol' biets and personally she most definitely has a vendetta against you for whatever reason.

If she doesn't have the e-mail that you asked for, then I see that as a case of the ball being in your court. Best of luck and keep us updated
 
Dolby said:
UPDATE : They've set the SEESA lawyer date for afternoon of 27 Aug. A few people I chatted to said it that it may not even happen because she's clearly in the wrong and the lawyer may have said telephonically 'rather just drop it'. However, it is set so maybe she feels she has something OR planning on offering me to leave?

Can't remember if I added what I think the major bit in this thread, but the warning letter states : 'Unprepared for a meeting. This after I sent you an email with instruction on what to prepare. Unacceptable you did not read my email'

I requested this email or date multiple times - including in the meeting where I was given the warning. I was even told she's send it after I signed'. Eventually a few days late when I asked again, I received 'To be clear this was NOT an email but an actual presentation' She's basing her warning on this email which is no where ?

In the same letter of I pointed out a was forced, she says : 'To be clear, you were NOT forced to sign. You asked for 24 hours and were declined' That's as clear as mud to me and she's trying to get out of the procedural part that was done wrong.

I see her using her coerced witness though
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like she though you would run afraid but did not actually have her ducks in a row.

I would be careful they this thread is not discovered might be some clause about making the details of the case public, then again I might just be paranoid haha.
 
Haven't mentioned the company or her name. Some can work it out (don't mention if one). Not really a case her either (I'd think they wouldn't want one as it's probably easier and cheaper to negotiate leaving)

I was told the same thing ; she didn't expect a junior to come back to her.
 
If she has dished out a warning based on false pretenses (as in this email doesn't exist or was never sent), you should be requesting that disciplinary action be taken against her for dishonesty and fraud (usually dismissable offences in companies) after your "hearing".
 
Thinking of that when mine is done 27 Aug
 
Dolby, sorry I'm just catching up on the thread now so forgive my ignorance. But it seems to be like you really enjoyed working at this company before the new GM came along. Is she like the CEO or just a GM of one division? If she's just the GM of one division, then maybe you should consider moving into another department? It doesn't really matter if you burn your bridges with her, but i doubt you want to burn bridges with the entire company right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X