Boss sucks, issued warning for insubordination under false pretenses, seek advice

[Titus]

Pissed off my boss in an email where I cc'ed his boss and made him look bad. Not smart I know, anways...

He then issued me a verbal warning for insubordination over an event that happened the week before where I interacted with an assistant of his. He totally did it b/c of the email and he was pissed about it and would have never gotten the warning if the email diddn't happen. He didn't mention the supposed insubordination the day it happened, the next day, the day after, nor the day we were scheduled to have supervision. He didn't re-schedule the supervision (this all happened the week before the email were I made him look bad and pissed him off). Normally he would have at a minimum re-scheduled our supervision if the supposed insubordination was a legit issue in order to address it as he shares the same office with his assistant and they interact constantly. If that person were legit upset about the supposed insubordination it would have come up the week it happened, that is his track record.

Then the email where I pissed him off and the next morning he calls me into his office and tells me about the supposed insubordiation and hands me a write up of it. Many important aspects of what I said (that make things look good for me and go against supposed insubordination were left out) and when I started asking his assistant if she remembered how I prefaced the conversation with such and such, and also mentioned very narrow and specific circumstances and how they would be unfair, etc my boss basically interrupted and took over the convo and steam rollled the convo and went on about how it's unacceptable, etc...

I told him "this is retaliation because of our email exchange yesterday". He said "you can think that if you want" or something like that. I could tell that morning he was pissed at me. And his assistant couldn't even look me in the eye later that day, like that person got corralled into going along with the insubordination because he was pissed at me over the email.

Now I am thinking of writing a grevience and am looking for advice/feedback. I'm going to mention the timeline and how that supports my positon that he is retaliating against me because he is upset over an email exchange (where I cc'ed his boss and made him look bad...i've been treated unfairly at work for a long time and eventually I had enough... i may also write a grevience about the unfair treatment in general but that is a separate issue.

What I'm wondering is:

Should I keep it as brief as possible and as close to the facts as possible?
Should I include things like he kept the door to his office open while doing this, it's unprofessional as others in the office can hear me being punnished?
Should I mention how a little while back this same assistant basically told me not to do a certain thing, then the next week when I didn't do the certain thing told me I SHOULD HAVE done that thing, criticizing me, sort of scapegoating me and putting me in a loose loose situation....I emailed that assistant and my boss about this and suggested me and hte assistant possibly meet in person to discuss it. She did not respond and my boss conveniently just ignored me that week when we were supposed to have supervision. This is like neglecting his duties as a supervisor, not addressing what was an obvious bad move on the part of his assistant that left me feeling helpless and blamed or should I just stick to the basic facts around the 'insubordination' charge and defending that?

I plan to defend it because it's weak and misleading and also plan on including it's retaliation b/c he's pissed about the email and I fear further retribution and the timeline is strong evidence supporting it's about hte email and retaliation.

Should I mention other unprofessional conduct on his part or keep it plain and simple. I also think that he's planning on hitting me with something else in our next supervison, probably related to the email.

So...keep it plain and simple and stick to the facts or be more expansive to show a pattern as well as inconsistency on his part?

Should I include how insubordination is like connected to a character issue and I have never been accused of anything like that in the 20 years I've worked for the company?

I'd really appreciate as much feedback as possible, especially specifics around keep it simple and factual and narrowly focused or more expansive. Should I mention how he over talked her when I was asking her questions about the event? (supports my claim that he's driving this and it's retaliation over the email).

I'm planning on leaving the company and realize it was a mistake to make him look bad in front of his boss in an email, I don't need feedback on that.

Thanks in advance for any feedback. I've done and will do more research on insubordination, the charge in reality is a total joke and would never have come up except for the email but my company is changing where mgmt is grouping together to all have each others backs and pit them against non-management. I want to make the best possible presentation and all help appreciated a great deal. Thanks!

 

[L2R]

so, you want to retaliate to a retaliation, huh?

cool your spurs, mate. don't sink to his level.

two things for you to think about.
1-bias is an element of procedural fairness and natural justice, and it appears as though this is in breach;
2-however, the procedural issue would only be a major thing if the accusation is completely false. if there is some substance to the allegation of insubordination, that is what you need to address primarily, and do it directly.

industrial cases like this are determined on the balance of probability (not proof). seniority plays a large part in determining who is right and who is wrong. sadly, in a he said/she said matter, the one with lesser seniority tends to lose. you need to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of your case along with what you want to achieve and any negative consequences will be, before deciding what course to take.

join your union.

 

[Titus]

so, you want to retaliate to a retaliation, huh?

cool your spurs, mate. don't sink to his level.

two things for you to think about.
1-bias is an element of procedural fairness and natural justice, and it appears as though this is in breach;
2-however, the procedural issue would only be a major thing if the accusation is completely false. if there is some substance to the allegation of insubordination, that is what you need to address primarily, and do it directly.

industrial cases like this are determined on the balance of probability (not proof). seniority plays a large part in determining who is right and who is wrong. sadly, in a he said/she said matter, the one with lesser seniority tends to lose. you need to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of your case along with what you want to achieve and any negative consequences will be, before deciding what course to take.

join your union.

OK. Great feedback and thanks for your input. This occurred in a staff meeting where there were about 10 people present. There is little substance at all to the accusation. Everyone heard the context, all of what I said, in the meeting. Essentially I said that in a very narrow set of circumstances where it would be impossible for me to follow a company policy I would look forward to, or be happy to, or words to that effect, to go to human resources and complain if I was subjected to punnishment for not following said policy.

In the write up there is a quote of me saying "I'd be happy or look forward to or whatever go to human resources and complain". The context and details that I described as a very legitimate possibilty were left out of the write up. But everyone in the meeting heard me describe and explain how such a situation could very possibly arise. I also started by saying I understand why such a policy exists...went on to describe how in some situations it would be impossible to follow the policy, and then ended by saying how I would look forward to bringing the matter to human resources.

Does that change things? Should I keep it to this.

The grevience procedure is I write up a grevience and give it to my boss. He has a limited time to respond. If either of us is unhappy it goes to the division director to address. After that point if either of us is not satisfied it goes to human resources.

My current thinking, thanks in part to your helpful post is to keep my initial grevience write up to the specific details of the context and how it would be impossible to follow the procedure in some cases. Then the boss will respond. He will assert I was disrespectful or whatever but there were a dozen people present who heard the context.

Then my current thinking (I'm still looking for more feedback, you've been extremely helpful thus far) is to either at the point it goes to the division head (his boss who I cc'ed and it pissed him off) or more likely wait until it goes to human resources and then point out the timelines and how it's retaliation and I'm afraid of further retaliation.

Thoughts?

Are we supposed to be afraid or intimidated to go to human resources if there is a company policy that at times can not be followed where my boss (and none of the other bosses) instituted a rule where there would be a warning any time the policy is not followed. This is what spurred the discussion in the first place. I was pointing out how one can not be expected to do work on the weekend and then if an emergency arises on Monday following the weekend that would need to be prioritized so the policy could not be followed. There is not enough of a window of time to do x policy in 3 days when they count the weekend as part of the 3 day window and we do not work on the weekend. The assistant had nothing to say about that when I pointed that out.

 

[Titus]

I definitely want to address this in an appropriate and professional manner but have been targetted to some degree over the past 3 years and there is a potential age discrimination case against the company since I am over 40. I'm not one to make waves but everyone has their breaking point.

Obviously I want to be smart about it but I don't want them to put another warning in my record. As it stands there is one in there that I believe is in violation of fedral law as I was reprimanded for not getting certain work done while out on family medical leave act. Another warning was not getting certain paperwork done in a certain timeframe but it begs the question around if I have 10hrs or work assigned to me every 8 hr day and everyone else has 8 hrs of work, how can I be expected to meet the same deadlines.

I've worked for the company for 20 years, the first 17 I have all great reviews. The last 3 years they have not done a review on me, against company policy...while assigning very unfair workloads..... and never a warning. Now 3 in the last year, this being the 3rd.

I see this latest warning as a potential move to try and re-build a case against me and do not really want to pursue a lawsuit. But I do not want negative things in my record, especially since I am planning on leaving the company and want to make sure that my boss backs off rather than looking to angle for ways to punnish me over the coming months as this is what I see happening if I don't do something. I just want to be smart about what I do and leaving very quickly isn't a viable option.

He is probably planning on giving me some sort of other warning or something for the email I sent that made him look bad, at least I fear this or that he will take other steps to try and make me look bad and need to faciliate some sort of dialogue with human resources about the unfair treatment I have been subjected to relative to my co-workers. At least I feel like I have to do this to protect myself.

 

[L2R]

I don't understand how that constitutes insubordination. Anyway, it's a weak warning and it seems to have been procedurally flawed. As are your other warnings. HR are meant to be the middle ground, but in reality they know who pay them, and can be very intimidating at times. Hence, the need for a union involvement (i work for one, here in australia. giving this kind of advice is what i do).

The best approach when attacked like this is to probe for more information. By asking for some substance, you are not beligerantly disagreeing, but fighting back strongly anyway. So, all the good parts and none of the bad. I would suggest that you document all such instances and follow the same procedure each time, making all contact in email form.

Separate your grievances for now. These have no deadline for submission, so it is best to hold off and focus on one matter at a time. Right now, the pertinent issue is the warning. Don't muddy the issues by mixing them.

Since this is a new thing with this boss, another option for addressing it is to request a mediation session. This is a softer approach to resolution where interpersonal friction has affected the working environment. In a mediation, there is no blame game but more of a "let's see how we can work amicably together" type situation.

I would not recommend a grievance unless you have repeated instances to cite. Only then can you demonstrate that it is an ongoing pattern of behaviour which is a problem for the office.

 

[Titus]

I don't understand how that constitutes insubordination. Anyway, it's a weak warning and it seems to have been procedurally flawed. As are your other warnings. HR are meant to be the middle ground, but in reality they know who pay them, and can be very intimidating at times. Hence, the need for a union involvement (i work for one, here in australia. giving this kind of advice is what i do).

The best approach when attacked like this is to probe for more information. By asking for some substance, you are not beligerantly disagreeing, but fighting back strongly anyway. So, all the good parts and none of the bad. I would suggest that you document all such instances and follow the same procedure each time, making all contact in email form.

Separate your grievances for now. These have no deadline for submission, so it is best to hold off and focus on one matter at a time. Right now, the pertinent issue is the warning. Don't muddy the issues by mixing them.

Since this is a new thing with this boss, another option for addressing it is to request a mediation session. This is a softer approach to resolution where interpersonal friction has affected the working environment. In a mediation, there is no blame game but more of a "let's see how we can work amicably together" type situation.

I would not recommend a grievance unless you have repeated instances to cite. Only then can you demonstrate that it is an ongoing pattern of behaviour which is a problem for the office.

Again, VERY helpful sir. Thank you! I have been documenting various instances of unfair treatment, slights by my supervisor, and in general the unfair workload that has been asigned to me as well as denials for making changes, steps and acknolwedgements that higher ups have made that support my position of unfair workload, etc as part of a plan to file a formal grevience that demonstrates onogoing unfair treatment. It has been in the works for a while.

I also like your idea for probing for more info. The problem is that my boss will deflect and generalize and restate the same, not giving me much concrete to work with. Meanwhile I have this insubordination warning on my back as well as a fresh target on my back that I put there myself by calling him out in an email where I cc'ed his boss (who is also on the hook because she backed on 'threatened warning' to me and my teammates for work to be done with deadlines when previously that work was assigned to other people. The rest of the teams followed the plan to have others do the work, my boss did not and his boss backed him in sending an email saying we would get warnings if that work was not done by x date (I just did the work and didn't complain). I referenced that in the email to my boss and his boss is not stupid so knows she is on the hook for that should it come out to HR (I understand HR bows to administration but they are bound by federal and state laws as well as their own policies, and I would assume treating those with the same job titles and same pay reasonably the same when it come to work.

So in the short term I can't see how any conversation about the recent warning with my boss will go anywhere or what my approach would be as he will give a couple of boilerplate statements, then just repeat them and become annoyed if I probe for more info/details/clarity/etc.

So do you suggest I let the recent warning slide while keeping my own documentation of it's unfairness/inappropriateness along with any other instances of similar occurances? My boss has now enlisted a new team member as a double agent who sucks up to him while trying to get info from/on me pretending to be my friend. She is a new employee and has higher status than me. She was on my side initially but is sucking up to the corporate culture now and he even referenced her as a 'witness' to the supposed insubordination even though there was a room full of co-workers who heard hte whole story. But she is his minion now as is his assistant. I"m not sure where his supervisor stands. She is level headed and not unfair, but may hold an alligience to my boss simply because htey are both supervisors.

My concern about letting this recent warning slide is that it is new pavement paving the way to trying to build a case against me. My boss is not as smart as me so I can catch him with his pants down, but this only matters if powers greater than him witness it.

At some point I have to make a move. My boss has taken some steps to work towards lightening my workload when in a roundabout way I got word to people above him and he was basically directed to as far as I can gather. But the workload remains very unfair and his plans at present are to only make 1 more change and think the matter is resolved. While I carry about 40% more work than most all others with the same title and pay as myself. In part he just doesn't have the capacity to understand, he also doesn't want to be bothered. One very frustrating part is that I told him I wanted to change to work with different clients (making my workload fair) and he said he couldn't support that because of me being behind in my paperwork...which of course is because I have 40% more work and hte paperwork takes a backseat to more pressing matters. So if I were to apply for a transfer the process is the prospecitve new supervisor contacts my supervsior as basically a reference.

I have the option to 'make suggestions' to his boss and another higher up for restructuring and improvements, they have asked for input from me and others in general, however I'm so busy I don't have time and if I make the time the changes would likely take a couple of years anyway. I don't want to be stuck in this position for another couple of years.

I am going to pursue employment elsewhere but still have my boss as an obsticle.

Maybe I"m making too much out of this insubordination thing but it really is totally unfair and ridiculous and he has his pants down, he reacted emotionally without thinking it through. If I don't call him out in a way that gets the attention of his supervisor and possibly HR I can see things getting worse for me, or at best staying the same which is ongoing unfair treatment, and I'm not a crybaby talking minor stuff. He's too young and too new to even understand. The higherups do alrready to some degree but are not highly motivated to make changes to benefit me, they have their own priorities and own ideas and if I don't push the issue things won't change.

Maybe I should focus on a grevience about the overall unfairness that dates back to a previous supervisor who assigned very unfair workload, refused to make changes...this is where the problem started. My current supervisor has been my boss for 1 year and got the message that I was behind in my work and abscent a lot (I can make a case that the abscences were stress related secondary to unfair treatment in part and also show that I was abscent a lot prior to 3 years ago and always was ablet to keep up with my work and was in fact seen as if not THE best, definitely one of the best in the agency. All the higher ups know of this reputation of mine. They simply started changing their approach to my frequent abscences. And the message got to HR that *I* was the problem because I couldn't keep up due to abscences and stress. Only in the past few months have I begun to make an issue of the unfair treatment in indirect ways, none of it has reached HR. Once they started making changes a few months ago my abscences stopped.

So how do I deal with this verbal warning (put in writing)? If I let it slide and the supervisor doesn't let go of his resentment and continues to look for ways to target me do I then address that warning? Or do I simply build up a large and comprehensive greivience about the systematic unfairness in treatment that is and has been ongoing?

Maybe the insubordination thing being so fresh has me emotionally tied up a bit but it's completely unfair and since HR knows nothing about the unfair job treatment and significant disparity in work assignements they will be getting yet another warning with my name on it, further solidifying in their minds coninued problems with my performance. (the only legit issue that exists is frequent abscences and that stopped a few months ago when they threw me a bone after I complained about unfair treatment for the 2nd time to my boss and his boss made a change in my caseload so my morale improved. But now I see there is not plan to level the playing field and I'm faced with another warning.

I realize I'm hitting you with a lot, I'm stressed as hell about this whole situation, talk to my dad about it daily, it's wreacking my family life with my wife due to stress. And my one close allay at work had her job re-structutued with a lower pay so she has decided to leave and this is her last week.

I'd really like to hear your opinion on what to do about the insubordination thing because I feel like if I let it slide it will hurt me. I dont' think there can be a 'bad' outcome if I don't. Even if it goes all the way to HR the policy is they can't retaliate if someone files a grevience. I've been with the company 20 years, they hired new sr mgmt a yr or 2 ago, she is pulling in allays and they are disposing of and devaluating staff more and more each month.

I can easily make a case that my workload is and has been unfair and there will be no way the organizations leaders will be able to deny it. I've been doing this for 20 years and know the system and how to demonstrate, articulate, the unfairness they will have to agree with. My boss, forget it.

I've also read that it seems to be recommended that one address a wrong doing quicker rahter than sooner. I didn't do that with the unfair workload and that might have been a big mistake. I saw myself as a team player and didn't want to make anyone look bad. But I've been put through the meat grinder.

I'm not so sure I should let the insubordinate thing slide, it's ridiculous and vindictive and should put a lid on my boss trying to come at me. If I don't I fear the unknown and what his next action will be. By not addressing it I feel as though I am implicitly agreeing with it by not arguing against it. And as I said HR knows nothing of the unfair treatment that has been ongoing, with another warning it makes it look much worse for me.

I'm also not high paid so should I look into age discrimination case what will I really get even if I win? And is there any other legal angle besides that, some way to legally address unfair workload without a 'discriminatioin' angle?

Thanks for all your help and support. If there is anything I can do for you to repay the favor please do not hesitate to ask. I've been between a rock and a hard place for hte past 3 years.....
Peace and thanks again man!

 

[L2R]

hey i'm happy to help, but you are now getting to a level of detail which is difficult to cover completely. this post has raised a few questions in my mind, but they aren't pertinent to your main concerns.

I don't recommend that you let the warnings slide. As you said, it is building a case against you. No response is implied agreement with the allegations. With a number of warnings on file, there is justification for escalation and possibly more severe sanctions. My advice about probing questions is importantly in email form. Similarly, if you are told something questionable, such as an unrealistic target or verbal warnings, paraphrase it back to him. Ask, "just to clarify, earlier you told me that xxx. is that right?" They are left with three options, denial, confirmation or ignore it. Denial is a win. Confirmation is motivation for questions/probing. If he ignores it, after 3-4 days forward the sent item back to him asking for an update on the below. Do this two to three times, expect a reply because it gets obvious that he is inappropriately ignoring staff. Workload expectations can be probed to demonstrate how unreasonable they are this way too (eg: when should i do x, when a, b, c and d effectively take up my whole day? is anyone else doing x, and if so, when do they squeeze it in?)

some further general tips:
-Get familiar with your industrial instruments (contracts, awards, agreements, atcs, etc). You need to know what mechanism you are raising a dispute by.
-Do not lodge "general" grievances, especially if they span multiple people. If a single person has a problem with a number of staff, the easiest and cheapest solution is to get rid of the one. This could be as simple as changing teams or locations, or it could result in a systemic campaign to make you want to resign.
-Talk to your doctor about work related stress, consider some time off if needed and possibly discuss workers compensation (see relevant compo laws in your area too).
-Don't trust anyone. I remember at my last job, my words of criticism from a conversation in an elevator were echoed to me by the manager in question the day after. Everyone's a snitch in an office, even if they are suffering too. People tend to be very unreliable, unless they are both union members and active in it.

Without knowing the background in detail, i can't say if mediation is appropriate. Don't let the mere certainty that it will be unsuccessful sway you. "Giving it a go" counts. It demonstrates that you are not just after this guy, it shows that you are willing to work it out. The onus will be on him to meet you on this "high road". If he doesn't, the better you look in comparison. If he does, then there's actual hope for a resolution. either way it's your win!

 

[Titus]

hey i'm happy to help, but you are now getting to a level of detail which is difficult to cover completely. this post has raised a few questions in my mind, but they aren't pertinent to your main concerns.

I don't recommend that you let the warnings slide. As you said, it is building a case against you. No response is implied agreement with the allegations. With a number of warnings on file, there is justification for escalation and possibly more severe sanctions. My advice about probing questions is importantly in email form. Similarly, if you are told something questionable, such as an unrealistic target or verbal warnings, paraphrase it back to him. Ask, "just to clarify, earlier you told me that xxx. is that right?" They are left with three options, denial, confirmation or ignore it. Denial is a win. Confirmation is motivation for questions/probing. If he ignores it, after 3-4 days forward the sent item back to him asking for an update on the below. Do this two to three times, expect a reply because it gets obvious that he is inappropriately ignoring staff. Workload expectations can be probed to demonstrate how unreasonable they are this way too (eg: when should i do x, when a, b, c and d effectively take up my whole day? is anyone else doing x, and if so, when do they squeeze it in?)

thanks again so much for your help. In particular the communications via email and repeatedly asking him if he does not reply. I will try this. The problem I face, and I don't know if you have any suggestions in how to deal with it, is that his standard response is and will be "we will talk about that in supervision". It's hard to get him to put things in writing in email unless he is upset and off kilter emotionally, then he will slip and do so. Otherwise it's standard "we can talk about this in supervision". The obvious problem there is that then there is no record, he can behave any way he wants and deny it later, make up lies, etc, etc.

How do I make the most out of a situation where the boss will make this his standard response? I've read somewhere a suggestion like saying 'it helps me remember if things are in writing' and I suppose I can re-state what he said in an email asking for clarification (and then he is forced to deny, clarify, or say 'we will go over this in supervision").

I'd really like to be able to get him to document via email responses to questions, suggestions on how to deal with 'we will address that in supervison' or some similar statement from him would be greatly appreciated. Again, you've been a fantastic help and if you can give me some ideas on how to deal with 'we will discuss in supervison' (which he's doing to avoid locking himself into anything in writing) would be great. If I can't get him to document, at least any ideas on how to follow up to that type of reply would be a fantastic help.

Thanks again so much for taking the time to assist me with this, it's an incredible relief and support!! I can't thank you enough!
't t

 

[L2R]

hey we are both workers, that makes us comrades

don't ask him to put it in writing, it looks suspicious and it may antagonise things. instead, see the part i wrote about paraphrasing back. don't tell him what he said, ask "did you say x?" or "do you mean y?" along with something innocent like "let me be clear about this" or "just making sure i got you right." i know how stressful this kind of stuff can be. you're welcome.

 

[Titus]

hey we are both workers, that makes us comrades

don't ask him to put it in writing, it looks suspicious and it may antagonise things. instead, see the part i wrote about paraphrasing back. don't tell him what he said, ask "did you say x?" or "do you mean y?" along with something innocent like "let me be clear about this" or "just making sure i got you right." i know how stressful this kind of stuff can be. you're welcome.

Thanks so much again. Yet another follow up question. As I institute your suggestions above here, how do I avoid/reduce the chances of him 'catching on' to what I am doing. The first few times I can see him responding and not thinking anything suspicious, but if I do this on a regular basis I think at some point he's likely to catch onto the fact that I am soliciting info from him in the form of documentation.

One idea I have is to sort of pick my battles, do it infrequently.
Another is to mix it up and ask him to clarify things that will make him look good, possibly even occasionally cc'ing his boss in a couple of those (I very rarely cc his boss so have to continue to do so only rarely less he will suspect something - and I've learned my lesson about shooting off from the hip in an email and ccing his boss making him look bad.
But I suspect that even if I use this savvy approach, if I were to do so with regularity, depending on the content/context of the info I'm inquiring about, he will likely at some point get suspicious- or more likely discuss this changed approach with his boss 'Titus has been emailing me, etc, etc.... she looks at a few of them and then clues him into the fact that I'm gathering documentation on him in his own words.

Thoughts? Are my 2 ideas above good ones in your opinion? Have any others?

I can't stress enough how helpful you are being to me. And again, I can't thank you enough.

This man is childish and abusing his power. He's younger than me and less experienced, I certainly don't come across as a know it all and am pretty quiet and humble but I get the strong feeling that both he and his assistant strongly prefer to supervise very green employee's who know nothing and look to them for all the answers and all the direction when I've been doing this work quite a while and it comes second nature to me. He's not intimidated by me but am learning he has power trip issues and control issues. His assistant on the other hand I think feels embarrassed that she knows so much less than me. And I'm not the type to make people feel that way. In one meeting she and I attended with a forensic psychologist I introduced myself by name only, the guy asked are you 'used title' and I said yeah. She introduced herself and said he's the assistant bla bla and actually followed that by saying "but it means nothing". I could tell she felt very awkward that she appears 'green' in the field, like a newbie and was self conscious of this fact and the fact that I am seasoned and experienced.

I don;t want her to feel that way, we can only know what we can know and getting knowledge and experience takes time. I'm not quitting so they can feel more competent and powerful though but am willing to interact with them in ways that help them feel comfortable and helpful, etc and try to do that. They just want me to quit. I'm not doing that until I find the right job and will not be bullied or pushed out.

 

[L2R]

you can't control how someone will react, especially when there is pre-existing friction. i've had cases where people complain of intimidation and harassment for being looked at too much AND too little! one day i'd get a call and told "he's looking at me, what should i do" and the next "he's ignoring me, what should i do".

the important part is that you don't appear to be trouble making from anyone reviewing these contacts later, in case it is escalated to hr (or whoever). make them simple and innocent, without any aggression or accusation (whether direct or indirect), and you'll be fine.

i have seen countless cases of intimidation to resignation campaigns. the golden rule here is that they only work by consent. don't consent, and with simple steps like those above protect yourself from attacks. if you're careful, the worst that could happen is being offered a golden handshake to walk away (happened to me in my last job, was offered three months pay to go away. i told them to double it and they did. on the spot ). but then i'm not sure whether you are protected by unfair dismissal laws such as the ones that apply here in aus.

 

[axl blaze]

your retaliation will only make you look bad, and much up any chance you have of patching up your relationship with your boss

you have to know how office politics work by now. you are correct in that he is only (and unfairly) punishing you for your foolish mistake of an e-mail. you are right in that he is using that other cover story as a lame excuse. but you even admitted you were wrong in that e-mail. did you honestly think that you were not going to be punished for said e-mail, in some way or another?

I know it's not fair, but welcome to capitalism. he is your boss, and his word is more powerful than your word

do you want to get fired? it sounds like you are on the hot seat. I can say for sure that if I made the same mistake you did, I would have been fired from the start

please reconsider. or if you plan to go full-steam ahead, then please make sure you have job options about you

 

[Titus]

Thanks again to everyone for their feedback. I've spoken to my father who told me my mom has a friend who used to work in HR. My father's opinion, can't say mine is far off, is that insubordination is one of the WORST things someone can be accused of. What's worse? Physically assaulting someone at work? Stealing? Anything else?

So the completely false accusation of insubordination is extremely bad in my opinon. He made it. I know it's false and there were a dozen people in the room (he wasn't) who can testify to everything that was said, not just what is in his write up, my last sentence.

Essentially, for those who missed it. A policy was explained (again) with the warning for violation of said policy.
What I did: 1. Stated I understood why said policy exists
2. Pointed out that since there is a 3 day window to comply, and since they don't take weekends into account for the 3 day window, there are in practice times when there is only 1 day to comply. The person in charge did not respond.
3. Pointed out that there are times that when there is only 1 day to comply in practice there are and will be instances where urgent matters arise that have to be prioritized, leaving it to be impossible under those circumstances to comply. I said this again to the person in charge. No response.
4. I said, the first time that happens and I am punnished for non compliance (when it is impossible to comply) I will go right to HR to complain.

This is what happened.

In the write up my boss wrote: Policy and punnishment for not following policy were reviewed. Titus then said "the first time I am punnished I am going to HR to complain. The boss then went on typing how this is disrepectful and insubordination and undermines the person who is running the meetings authority and negatively impacts the team and there personal lives and will not and can not be tolerated. Further instances will result in further disiplinary action.

So: Either I committed insubordination or I did not. It's pretty obvious to me I did not. The boss not including all of what was said, deliberately mischaracterizing my additude is an attack on me. There are a dozen people who were in the meeting. I don;t think any of them will deny the statements I made leading up to the 'quote'. I don't think the person running the meeting will because there are like 10 other people who were there and heard everything. I highly doubt my boss will be able to go to them and intimidate them into lying to cover his ass, I don;t think he will even try.

I deserve to work in an enviornment that is not hostile, particularily one in which my boss is attacking me falsely and accusing me of something terrible that I did not do.

He also followed up in trying to bait me the following day in emails pointing out mistakes I made on something else. It's the only time he has ever done this. I did not respond (no problem there, he did not request a reply). If he did the same thing with other employees the week before, the same week, the week after, well that shows he;s following up fairly. If not it is further evidence I have reason to believe I'm being targetted.

I must address this issue as I can not let a charge of insubordination that is false go un answered any more than I could let a false charge of stealing or assaulting a boss or co-worker go unansered.

The main question is how do I best respond.

I'm thinking I need to challenge the insubordination charge and have it explained by an impartial person how exactly what I did (what I actually did and said) is in fact insubordination and not something else (like acknowledging understanding why a policy exists, pointing out there are times it is much harder to meet- since weekends are counted as days when the policy could be met when they can not, and times it is impossible to meet. The person running the meeting who I was speaking to never said "I can bring that to the attn of someone since one can not be expected to follow that policy on their days off, or if an emergency arises like your pointing out sometimes happens that can be looked at on a case by case basis, or you will be given extra time, or someone else will handle the emergency, or I will bring your concerns that seem to have some merit to someone". She said nothing. So only then did I state I will complain to HR the first time I am punnished under those circumstances (where it would be impossible to comply and the prez, vice prez, all the way down will have to agree with my position- it would be not possible to meet the standard under the conditions I pointed out- if it was brought to their attn).

I'm thinking of going to HR and explaining that I got this warning, stating the facts that happened in the meeting. stating all who were there and witnessed the whole thing. And then either stating I don;t believe it constitutes insubordination or asking for it to be explained to me how it in fact constitutes insubordination or something like that.

I am also thinking of requesting a written apology from my boss.

Assuming they rule it;s not insubordination I am thinking of then pointing out other instances of unfair treatment and stating that I believe this is evidene I am being targetted unfairly and under attack (I will hammer out the best wording with my mothers friend, anyone else who can offer good advice, and possibly even go to a labor protections agency or a lawyer for advice and state I do not feel safe working for this person and requesting a transfer.

Our supervison happened and he didn;t even mention the email. He raised the insubordination thing sort of in passing at the end of the meeting saying "I know you have your view on it and I have mine"

But there is NO WAY I can let that accusation go unchallenged. The only thing to figure out is the BEST way to challenge it and then the best steps to take after that so my position in the company remains secure and working to make sure I am not under this guy so out of his crosshairs.

Insubordination is a character thing. I;ve worked for 35 years and never been accused of it. Ive worked for that company for 20 years and never been accused of it.

Over the next week I will continue to do research and seek advice to plan the best way to challenge that charge to get it ruled on. He wasn;t even in the meeting so it;s a streach for him to be able to accurately determine if it was insubordination, not to mention since I wasn;t disobeying an order or stating intentions of disobeying an order it comes down to the other aspect of insubordination- things around slandering your boss or taking like an ass to them or something, can;t remember the specific wording of the other aspect of it.

Thoughts on that? feedback still greatly appreciated. Thanks all!!!

 

[L2R]

1-don't treat this like some tv movie court case. there won't be an impartial judge and/or jury and not all witnesses will be called and even if they are, they aren't sworn to tell the truth.
2-(again) make yourself familiar with the dispute mechanism in your contract/agreement/any relevant law. read every line, and follow every step in the escalation/dispute process.
3-when presenting your case, do so primarily in specific actions on the guy's part. the way they made you and/or others feel is secondary to this. leave out any speculative interpretations. allow the person deciding get to those conclusions on their own. the case leads to a conclusion, not the other way around.

best of luck.

 

[Titus]

Thanks again for the input bro. What about this: In the write up he stated that what I did negatively impacts the lives of the team members. That is him drawing a conclusion, yes? And it must be an assumption on his part unless he asked them, yes?

The way I see it, me saying that I will be happy to go right to HR to complain about being punished for not follwing a policy under circumstances where it would be impossible to follow the policy POSITVELY impacts my team members, if it impacts them in any way at all. Because I would be standing up as an employee complaining about being unfairly punished and they are held accountable to the same policy as I am. As the policy stands, given way I broke it down, it would be not possible to comply. So standing up and complaining about that to HR would have a positive impact on their lives as I see it, not a negative one. And stating the way that the policy is written, not taking into account that one only has 1 day and not 3 days as the way the policy reads but can never be carried out in practice if the event happens on a Thurs or Friday can only benefit their lives by hearing me speak on that in the staff meeting. Likewise it can only benefit their lives hearing me say I will complain to HR if I am punished for not being able to comply with the policy because of an emergency that takes up the whole day can happen on any given day of the week, and if it happened on a Monday like I explained, them hearing me say this can only positively impact their lives and not negatively impact their lives as I see it.

How should I address his assuming what happened negatively impacts the lives of my team members, if at all? It's part of the write up, part of his explaining/justifying insubordination.

If I'm (or your) in a staff meeting and your boss explains a policy and one of your team members points out how it's not only flawed in that it says you have 3 days to do something when in fact you will only have 1 day to do something half of the time, and goes on to say they will complain if punished not only as a result of the misleading way the policy is written, but if tried to put in practice they would be unable to do it sometimes due to other things that must take presidence (understood by the team leaders and all agency leadership) would you not feel either neutral or greatful and never feel like your being harmed?

So he added in his interpretations of the impact on staff which can not be correct. Should I ingore this or is this not material to point out that will help establish that it was not insubordination?

I'm also still unclear on whether or not I should add in that this was in fact an attack on me, the verbal warning in writing of insubordination. If I do it seems that I must make arguments to support this.

I've written down on another website that has HR professionals respond to questions about work issues. I submitted my write up and will be notified by email when the person responds.

I also wrote down at the same website the separate problem of having an unfair workload and how best to address this (to a different person) and will be notified when the answer for that one is there too.

If anyone has suggestions as to websites I might go to do do research or ask questions, etc that would be appreciated as well. I will be going over my companies policies and practices in detail as well as do some prelim research on the governmental legal body in my state that oversees complaints about work policies and practices or whatever. That would be the next step if addressing it within the company did not meet my satisfaction (and/or a lawyer but the gov't agency is free).

This is an attack on my character, and it is a lie. I might have pissed my boss off but I didn't state any lies or false things. And he's had several chances to address the things I mentioned in a reasonable way but did not/has not. The things I talked about were brought up months ago by me to him, and brought up again and again and he had stated ways he would address it (totally inadequately) and not even follow through with those things.

I'm so disturbed by being accused of insubordination it's like I'm being falsely accused of spitting in someone's face. Something I would never do. I've had thougths of writing up a letter detailing my long history with the company, the commendations I've gotten the excellent evaluations thorugh the years (well over a decade), the tremendous benefits I've contributed, how extremely valuable it's been for me to be an employee of the company, and because of the false accusation of insubordination that I will be leaving the company because I can not be associated with a company that will stand for that or back that kind of behavior. Up until the extreme re-organization the company was put in 3 years ago by the state, where everything got turned on it's head and I wound up with a job twice as hard as all my co-workers, and as a team player just sucked it up for years while many quit... I was viewed as the top employee at what I do. I was asked to take on specific very tought clients in very unusual circumstances and offered overtime to do so as I was recognized as the best.

The past 3 years have been hell and I have not even had an evaluation. I want them to understand my level of committment to the company and how much I have valued being part of the company and how this accusation if left to stand will destroy that relationship. How can you hold your head up high at a place that has been home to you for 20 years when a leader in that home accuses you falsely for something you consider terrible, like rape or something?

 

[MostUncivilised]

I have a few observations to offer, from the perspective of someone who was also involved in an HR dispute wth my manager, I also comment as a law student with an autonamous researchj project on employment law jurisprudence under my belt, also commenting as someone who is the union representative in our division, and the division representative in the company's employee consultation board. I'm not familiar with the detail of Massachusetts employment law, nor am I resident in the US, but I am familiar with the mutuaully-held principles and truisms of common-law employment tribunals.

I think I'd say upfront that I'm sympathetic to frustration with managers and understand the desire to go straight to the most likely decision-maker. Because of my involvement in union organising I am reflexively sympathetic to employees rather than the corporations employing then. And I understand how stressful these situations can be, and how the casual use of disciplinary tools like verbal warnings can feel arbitrary and one-sided.

However, having read your posts and what you've written about the various incidents, my frank analysis is that your case has no legs. For a few reasons I feel that it would be costly to you and unfair to the respondent.

In that vein, I would encourage to think carefully about how you proceed from here. It is absolutely paramount that you consider what it is precisely that you're seeking through the grievance process; if you want to continue as an employee of the company, you would behave differently than if you are seeking to leave anyway and are seeking to obtain more information prior to making a claim. If you seek independent assessment or arbitration, or eventually make a claim, your actions at every step of the process have to be unimpeachable and 100% justifiable through custom, procedure or common-sense.

To deal with the catalyst issue, I would have to say that unfortunately your action in bypassing the established heirarchy is a prima facie act of insurbordination. Unless it relates to a matter you cannot disclose to your manager, or has a whistleblowing element or is a complaint about serious misconduct (say, embezzlement, or taking drugs on company premises), then there is no justification to go outside the chain of command your company has chosen to implement.

Wih regards to the CC'ing, I thinkit's fair to say that it can often convey an implicitly aggressive tone, and where it involves CC'ing a person into an email complaint about them to their boss, it simply does not look good at all. On the evidence you've provided, it looks like an act of insubordination has occurred.

I would also say that if an employee of mine decided to send a complaint email about me directly to my boss, amd being CC'ed in, I would be absolutely furious and I would push very strongly for a"first and final" written warning; a verbal warning seems reasonable, even generous, on his part. I would also be noting Whether the employee came to me to apologise in person, or even to stand by their claims but apologise for failing to observe common professional courtesies.

I think you mentioned the door was open during the giving of the warning, that is certainly not appropriate on his part, though if you do encounter such things in future you must raise the issue at the time. If you asked your manager to close the door considering the disciplinary nature of the conversation, and he said no, that would certainly be an important piece of evidence/ As it is, if you don't raise the issue at the time it, it can be difficult to argue its evidentiary value at a later date. It raises the question, "If it was such an issue for you, why didn't you say anything?".

I'll quickly address two very important considerations before responding to your listed questions. The first is that you said you're intending to leave the company, and so I am curious to know the reason for pursuing a personal grievance on a formal basis?

Secondly, working people should always keep in mind that HR is not their best friend, their pastor, their parent or their agony aunt. They are not there to be an impartial judge of disputes between employees, their role in grievance matters is to determine and then minimise or eliminate any legal liability arising from the claim. They will appear supportive and interested in how you feel about it etc etc, they are in fact attempting to gather as much information as possible and determine ypir motivations and how to prompt you to withdraw the complaint of your own accord.

If you are intending to leave the company, you will simply find the process frustrating and laborious and entirely unsatisfactory. If you are indeed leaving, I would encourage you to speak to your manager in person and seek resolution there on a personal level I think he is in fact the one deserving something of an explanation, an apology, some closure

Should I keep it as brief as possible and as close to the facts as possible?

It should be as long as it needs to be; the inportant thing is to stick to the facts, your actions, their actions, how you've concluded they've behaved improperly, and what outcome you want.

Should I include things like he kept the door to his office open while doing this, it's unprofessional as others in the office can hear me being punnished?

If you raised it with him at the time and he refused to close the door, this is certainly not an appropriate way to conduct disciplinary proceedings. However, he may have forgotten it was open, he may have been so nervous about the meeting he did was a bit oblivious to this kind of thing. You will certainly be asked why you didn't raise it as the time if you felt so strongly about it and that if you didn't think about it until after the meeting, it's possible he did the same.

They are unlikely to accept the explanation if you claim that you did not feel able to speak your mind to him, considering the manner in which you expressed your views to his boss.

Should I mention how a little while back this same assistant basically told me not to do a certain thing, then the next week when I didn't do the certain thing told me I SHOULD HAVE done that thing, criticizing me, sort of scapegoating me and putting me in a loose loose situation

I'm unsure what relevance this has to the situation at hand.

....I emailed that assistant and my boss about this and suggested me and hte assistant possibly meet in person to discuss it.

It sounds like your boss proposed a very sensible route to resolving the issue. If she acted that way with a nalicious intent, it is indeed quite serious.

She did not respond and my boss conveniently just ignored me that week when we were supposed to have supervision.

I have to be blunt; this is not going to wash. There could be many possible explanations for her behaviour, including a simple error, or if it is a pattern it could be illness. But it certainly doesn't contain anything that even approaches substantiating a malicious intention.

In terms of the meeting proposed, it might be that they did allow it to slide and were quietly relieved when you did not press the issue. That final point is key; you did not press the issue and they could fairly be said to have acted in response to commubication from you of not being sure about wanting to proceed. Of course, this would be what they deduced by your conduct, but if they were wrong you had alple opportunity to bring it up.

I would encourage you not to bring it up because it appears you're dragging in all sorts of unrelated isses in an attempt to bolster your position; more pertinently, the examples you cite are ones that will be very quickly interpreted along the lines I just did (that it nay reflect more poorly on you than them)

This is like neglecting his duties as a supervisor, not addressing what was an obvious bad move on the part of his assistant that left me feeling helpless and blamed or should I just stick to the basic facts around the 'insubordination' charge and defending that?

From what you've written, any HR professional or lawyer worth ther salt would be able to use just the evidence you provide to write a brief convincingly painting you as an employee who is "problematic" in their relations with their colleagues, who is inconstant in making allegations and then failing to pursue offers that would lead to resolution, and would imply that this is just the latest complaint from an employee who really crossed the line in the original email and should be taking the verbal warning for insuboridation on the chin as a very light discipline.

I plan to defend it because it's weak and misleading and also plan on including it's retaliation b/c he's pissed about the email and I fear further retribution and the timeline is strong evidence supporting it's about hte email and retaliation.

Weak in respect of the nature of the punishment is correct; weak is not accurate in terms of the act you undertook, The insubordination charge is certainly not weak compared to the retaliation allegations, which are based on speculation rather than hard facts; if, as you'ce said, you're leaving the company then naturally there is nothing they can do to you when you're no longer an enployee.

If you fear retaliation and want to resolve this and mend those professional relationships and keep working there, cease the formal nature of your complaint to HR, engage in some self-reflection about the situation, and then head back to work.

You've expressed your opinion about the warning for insubordination; personally, I think it's perectly justifiable and that pursuing this complaint will be the trigger for a thorough and perhaps unsympathetic assessment of your conduct.

From my experience of these kinds of matters, and based on what you've said yourself, they would probably kick a report upstairs along the lines of this;

"the complainant has a history and discernable pattern of confrontation with colleagues and the instigation of complaints proceedings, but invariably fails to accept or follow up on offers that wuld lead to resolution of the issue in question. This employee has demonstrated some difficulty in managing professional relationships, resolvng conflict and has imputed a pattern of behaviour and malicious motive to her manager and colleague that may render impossible a working, professional relationship"

Should I mention other unprofessional conduct on his part or keep it plain and simple. I also think that he's planning on hitting me with something else in our next supervison, probably related to the email.

Time to get down to brass tacks. You will lose your job if you go ahead with this complaint; you sent an email to your manager's boss that could have had profound consequences for his empkoyment, for his career, it was done without any of the professional courtesies of speaking to someone to allow them to address your claims and correct misapprehensions. In response to this possible job-ending, career-damaging email you sent over his head, he replied by instituting the least damaging, least inimidating sanction that a company can choose; a verbal warning, no permenent record.

He would have certainly discused the decision to sanction you with his boss and/or HR, the sanction is not harsh for in relation to the incident in question. Prima facie, it was insubordination. You didn't just break a technical rule, you crossed the line and took a shot at your boss in a really personal way. You sould be taking it on the chin.

 

[L2R]

I've gone as far as my general advice can go online. I have no inclination to get to the level of detail as the above poster, since the limitations of forum communication make that kind of advice potentially misleading. This isn't saying anything about the above advice, i glazed over it, just as I glazed over the parts of your matter which can't be covered by general advice. Even at a glace, it seems that your emotional reflexes are escalating, and it is clear that you aren't really looking at it objectively. This goes back to my first line.

so, you want to retaliate to a retaliation, huh?

anyway, join your union so that you can get advice with full consideration of your local laws and industrial instruments. again, good luck.

 

[Titus]

However, having read your posts and what you've written about the various incidents, my frank analysis is that your case has no legs. For a few reasons I feel that it would be costly to you and unfair to the respondent.

In that vein, I would encourage to think carefully about how you proceed from here. It is absolutely paramount that you consider what it is precisely that you're seeking through the grievance process; if you want to continue as an employee of the company, you would behave differently than if you are seeking to leave anyway and are seeking to obtain more information prior to making a claim. If you seek independent assessment or arbitration, or eventually make a claim, your actions at every step of the process have to be unimpeachable and 100% justifiable through custom, procedure or common-sense.

To deal with the catalyst issue, I would have to say that unfortunately your action in bypassing the established heirarchy is a prima facie act of insurbordination. Unless it relates to a matter you cannot disclose to your manager, or has a whistleblowing element or is a complaint about serious misconduct (say, embezzlement, or taking drugs on company premises), then there is no justification to go outside the chain of command your company has chosen to implement.

Wih regards to the CC'ing, I thinkit's fair to say that it can often convey an implicitly aggressive tone, and where it involves CC'ing a person into an email complaint about them to their boss, it simply does not look good at all. On the evidence you've provided, it looks like an act of insubordination has occurred.

I would also say that if an employee of mine decided to send a complaint email about me directly to my boss, amd being CC'ed in, I would be absolutely furious and I would push very strongly for a"first and final" written warning; a verbal warning seems reasonable, even generous, on his part. I would also be noting Whether the employee came to me to apologise in person, or even to stand by their claims but apologise for failing to observe common professional courtesies.

Thanks very much for your response. It is very helpful as I continue to figure out the best way to proceed.
A couple of things, the email: Most important- the charge of insubordination has nothing to do with the email.

This started by me writing an email to my boss about some worked that needed to be addressed, and how the fact was complicated by other work. I wrote this email just to my boss.

He replied to me and was the one to originally cc his supervisor in THAT email, as well as his assistant, and another person. I responded, keeping his boss on the cc list and removed the assistant and the other person from the cc list.
And I'm not sure if your clear on this but I am not being charged with insubordination for writing that email.

I am being charged for insubordination for alleged behavior on my part the week before that occurred in a meeting that his assistant ran. He was not present in that meeting. I have written the details of what his verbal warning contains as I was given a written copy of this. I have also written the actual things that occurred in the meeting, important details that were left out.

The email exchange is IMO what served as a catalist for him issuing me a warning for insubordination for something that happened the week before.

Are you clear on those things? It seems to me that in your very helpful reply that you are a little confused and are under the impression that I am being charged with insubordination for the email I sent, which has not happened.

I am planning on staying with the company, at least over the short term. I would LIKE to stay with the company over the long term so long as my workload is made to be reasonably fair to the workloads of others with the same title and salary as mine.

Because I am falsely accused of insubordination IMO (if it is an accurate charge it would be helpful if you could clarify for me whether or not you understand that I am charged with insubordination for things that happened in a meeting a week before the email and have nothing to do with the email, as well as examine the acutal charges listed in the insubordinaiton, as well as what I actually said in the meeting- IMO very important details were left out). I realize this thread is long, and my posts are very long and complicated. If it would be helpful, I could make another post that spells out the insubordinaiton charge and what actually occurred in the meeting (10 other people were there so it will not be my word against a supervisors word).

Additionally, because I have a very unfair workload, something that my bosses boss is aware of, the policy that was discussed in the meeting, as well as the fact that everyone will be disciplined if they do not follow it to the letter 100% of the time, is also IMO an important and relevant factor. In addition to the things I pointed out that were omitted in the warning there is that additional fact I think is of importance.

As it stands now I have, essentially 10 hours of work assigned to me every day with only 8 hours to complete the work. The rest of the team has 8 hours of work assigned to them every day, with 8 hours to complete the work. How can I be reasonably expected to complete 10 hours of work in 8 hours when all of my co-workers are only expected to complete 8 hours of work in 8 hours? And at the same time be held to the same standard meeting deadlines in the same timeframe as they are given? The concerns to the fairness of the policy that I raised in the meeting apply to everyone, but are of particular concern to me because I have 10 hours of work assigned to me to complete in only 8 hours.

So if you could clarify whether or not you understand what I was actually given the warning for and look at what the warning contains and then my explaination of what actually occurred and evaluate those things it would be very helpful. Again, if it would be helpful, I would be happy to make a new post with the details of the insubordination charge and what acutally happened in the meeting.

Thanks in advance if you are able to address these things. I appreciate all of the input you, and everyone else, has provided.

 

[Titus]

So I spoke to my mother about this. She's been a mid level mgr for a large business for some time now. She gives out warnings, etc as a routine part of her job. Her take on it was that since I used the phrasing "I HOPE I get written up about this so I can go to HR" that aspect looks bad for me and in her workplace would be a judgement call re: insubordination. Although she coudln't understand the '3 day policy' where there is only 1 day, that weekends count, and initially thought that the asst who ran the mtg misundersood. She also said it the boss likely would have had to run this by HR before giving the warning, so finding out the time he did this could work in my favor. If he waited almost 1 week and then went to HR AFTER the email exchange (that upset him and I think is what prompted him to give the warning as retaliation) this could be used in my favor. And since he didn't give me the warning until AFTER the email exchange, the email exchange itself could NOT be used as a 'next step' in issuing another insubordination warning as I was not 'warned and told if this sort of behavor continues a written warning will be given" until after the email exchange happened.

She is also going to try and hook me up with a friend of hers who has worked in HR for years to discuss my whole situation, that I have been assigned and have been carrying an unfair workload for years despite asking that adjustments be made and that I can very easily demonstrate my workload is very unfair and uneven compared to my co-workers. She was pretty certain I should never have gotten a warning for work not completed when I was out on FMLA as the law is clear in that people can not be punished for taking FMLA. So a logical conclusion of that is that people also should not be able to be punished for not having work completed when out on FMLA, as they were out on FMLA.

There are many other factors that may play into how I eventually address this, I still have a lot of research to do, thinking to do, and consulting with as many people as I can who have knowledge about fair work practices, etc. I want to stay with the company, but only if my workload is adjusted to the point where it is reasonably in line with the workloads of my co-workers with the same titles and same pay. She didn't have any feedback around me not getting any performance eval's for over 3 years now when I got one yearly for the first 17 years (and more frequently when I moved up into another position, which also should have happened within 6 months of me moving into my latest position 3 years ago).

I'm willing to apologize to my boss, and feel I owe him an apology. I still do not grasp how what I said in the meeting constitutes insubordination. The mgmt of the company created the 3 day policy, but it in practice only allows poeple 1 day 50% of the time. Since mgmt created this policy and my boss is anxious to punish anyone who doesn't follow it (none of the other teams are taking this approach) I don't understand how I could get mgmt to fairly look at the policy. I'm also realizing that my boss and his assistant like to use the militaristic style of leadership (while pretending to want to be helpful and asssisting). I have only worked for him for less than a year and the assistant is very green and think she is intimidated and overwhelmed, doesn't have basic leadership skills, dont think she has received training to acquire them, and is over-compensating, trying to cover her lack of skills and abilities.

Getting a private free consult with an experienced HR person will be sweet!

It happened 1 week before he gave me the warning. The email happened 1 day before he gave me the warning.

 

[morpher001]

You have three options the way I see it.

Go hat in hand to your boss, unreservedly appologise for whatever you did to piss him off. Tell him how much respect you have for him and that you value your working relationship. Ask him to share his vision with you and outline what he feels your strenghts are, and how you can best contribute to the team. Don't cite any of your grievances or hope for any applogies from him, you may or may not get one. Once he feels he has won his battle, he may actually feel more comfortable giving you freedom and responsibility than you ever had before, since now he feels that he has you under control. Suck in your pride to profit from his insecurities.

Secondly, you can continue on your crusade and eventually get beaten down and moved on.

Thirdly, you can keep your head down for a while as you look for a new job.