The Royal Bank Of Scotland: Disgraceful Scrooge

The Royal Bank of Scotland disciplined an employee because she was let down by a childminder and could not work on 22nd December because she had to look after her 5 year old and her 15 month old baby.

Timetable:

8th December - Mrs Harrison notified by childminder of her unavailability for the 22nd.

12th December - notifies employer that she has tried everything but cannot find a substitute.

20th December - Royal Bank of Scotland says words to the effect "Work, or else".

The Royal Bank of Scotland is then as good as its word; no doubt having carefully thought through its consequences for employee relations, customer relations and its public image.

It not only does not pay Mrs Harrison for the day...

it also disciplines her for her unavoidable absence...

it then resists her complaint to the Employment Tribunal...

it is then puzzled as to why it loses...

and it is then crass enough to take the matter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. See the title link...

where, as a moron in a hurry could have predicted, it again loses.

I think we should have a quiz.

QUIZ TIME:

1. Do you approve of RBS's behaviour?

2. Would it make any difference to your opinion if RBS's actions were actually unlawful? (See the title link for the legal decision).

3. If you had a choice, would you work for:

(a) The Royal Bank of Scotland; or,
(b) Another Bank; or,
(c) Someone else; or,
(d) Anyone else as long as it was not the RBS.

4. If you could not find another job, would you prefer to be unemployed rather than take a job with RBS?

5. Do you want to be a customer of RBS?

COMMENT:

Luckily, I am not a customer of RBS and so do not need to change banks but I would if I was.

The credit crunch has nothing to do with this. It started well before that was even on the horizon.

It has to do with greed and stupidity.

Part-Time Employment Judge Behaves "Scandalously"

The Claimant in this case was represented by his wife who is a solicitor. See the title link. She is also a part-time employment judge. It was a claim before an employment tribunal.

Many of you may think that she should not have taken the case. If a lawyer acting for himself has a fool for a client then maybe a husband who instructs his wife to act for him has a fool for a lawyer.

It gets worse. Although the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the husband's appeal against the employment judge's decision to strike out his claim it did not disturb the finding that Ms Singleton was guilty of scandalous and unreasonable conduct.

He did not disturb the finding that Ms Singleton had fabricated an attendance note downplaying her and her husband's attempts to "blackmail" the defendants by threatening to put in the public domain documents that could show the defendants were guilty of defrauding the revenue in order to achieve a better settlement figure than the husband might be entitled to.

Well, the allegations are now in the public domain so the defendants will probably be investigated by the revenue anyway. However, the fraud allegations cannot be used against the defendants by the husband in the tribunal proceedings.

The successful appeal may still be a Pyrrhic victory for the husband, at least in respect of global family finances:

In light of the findings against Ms Singleton of scandalous and unreasonable conduct, which I have upheld, and in the light of the fact that she holds a position as a part time Chairman I direct that the decision and reasons of the Employment Tribunal and this judgment shall be referred to the President of Tribunals for him to consider what, if any, further action to take in respect of those matters.

It is difficult to be certain who Ms Singleton is (there are 9 female solicitors of that surname registered with the Law Society) but it may be the Ms Singleton who works for Eatons, the firm that instructed Counsel on the appeal. She lists employment law as an area of expertise. Her Law Society listing is here. If I have leapt to the wrong conclusion I will of course immediately delete or amend this post upon being notified of that fact.