Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

Lathyrus3

I leave you to continue worriedwell

I tend to leave threads when posters start descending to personal remarks.

Personal like saying you're making something up when you're making something up? If you think I defended this management team up about this issue do show me because I never intended to do that. Others have definitely criticised them.

theworriedwell

Madgrsn77, because just blindly believing allegations isn't great particularly when people have preconceived ideas about a person or organisations.

Ok. So I agree that blindly believing accusations isn't great. But neither is completely ignoring clear evidence of poor management within what is publically available information.

And yes, pre conceived ideas about an organisation , a person or a group of people certainly can be created from someone's experience of the organisation, person or a group of people with a particular title! This thread has clearly highlighted that.

judgements are being made on inadequate information which is dangerous and unfair.
Certainly unfair!

I agree theworriedwell

I leave you to continue worriedwell

I tend to leave threads when posters start descending to personal remarks.

Lathyrus3

No indeed, but it takes time. Especially if the organisation is obstructive.

In the meantime the National Trust could make public it’s dealings. Nobody is obstructing them.

Honestly * worried we’ll* you have a poor opinion of volunteers because you and your husband were treated badly by one. Can’t you see that rudeness by a volunteer is another facet of bad management, in that their attitude had not been addressed by the person whose job it was to manage volunteers.

After your complaint (or any previous ones) there should be a process, detailed and specific, to set in motion. That is part of the role of the manager.

If the process is not followed, that is bad management. The National Trust has utterly failed to carry out any due process or to abide by its own stated values.

I really don’t understand why anybody would defend such poor practice.

I'm not defending how this was handled, again you are making that up. I'm saying we don't know the whole story, judgements are being made on inadequate information which is dangerous and unfair.

Madgrsn77, because just blindly believing allegations isn't great particularly when people have preconceived ideas about a person or organisations.

Having seen how badly the NT has treated a friend who is actually employed by them it doesn't surprise me at all that they treat volunteers even worse

Lathyrus3

I don’t know that they didn’t log the whole process. I did say suspect and indeed, as pointed out, suspect is not proof.

I do wonder why, following the adverse publicity, they haven’t simply produced proof that, for instance, there have been meetings set up to discuss issues, invitations issued and relevant training provided.

None of this would have impinged upon confidentiality since outcomes need not have been made public, only that the Trust had fulfilled its obligations.

This would have stopped the dispute in its tracks and exonerated the Trust in at least some regards.

I suspect they will let it ride Lathyrus, organisations don’t usually release that type of information, unless there is a court hearing or similar. It’s hugely important for the volunteers involved, but for the Trust, they probably see it as a small blip?

paid

kircubbin2000

Sometimes the volunteers lack common sense. I was reduced to tears by one who refused letting me drive round to see how busy the car park was as I couldn't walk very far. She insisted I should park in a field some distance away. It turned out there were plenty of spaces in the car park.

Oh yes, managing volunteers is a skilled snd sometimes difficult job, because they do act independently and wrongly at times.

This is why good management is essential and why it is a paid post, that carries with it responsibility for outcomes.

It is reasonable to expect people to carry out the job that they are laid to do.

I don’t know that they didn’t log the whole process. I did say suspect and indeed, as pointed out, suspect is not proof.

I do wonder why, following the adverse publicity, they haven’t simply produced proof that, for instance, there have been meetings set up to discuss issues, invitations issued and relevant training provided.

None of this would have impinged upon confidentiality since outcomes need not have been made public, only that the Trust had fulfilled its obligations.

This would have stopped the dispute in its tracks and exonerated the Trust in at least some regards.

Sometimes the volunteers lack common sense. I was reduced to tears by one who refused letting me drive round to see how busy the car park was as I couldn't walk very far. She insisted I should park in a field some distance away. It turned out there were plenty of spaces in the car park.

Lathyrus3

Well Caslon, it was the Trust that identified them as a “whole group”, accused them of unacceptable behaviour and attitudes as a “whole group” and suspended them as a whole group, so that is the basis of their complaint.

Good management would have logged the instances of reported unacceptable attitudes and have dealt with those individuals concerned. If there are those who were not directly involved who have been caught up in the dispute, that is entirely due to the action of the Trust who chose to accuse and suspend the entire group.

It is clear from the correspondence from the Trust that the issue arose with some members of the team though Lathyrus, that is mentioned several times by them. If the volunteers stood together against them, they took the easy route in wanting them all to go, rather than tackling the ones they specifically referred to. I have no doubt that there were ringleader(s), and that there is more to this than we know.

How do you know by the way that it isn’t logged by the Trust, they handled it badly but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t log events or their decision making processes?

It’s an emotional response.

The need to belittle personally rather than ague logically based on evidence.

theworriedwell

I hope some people on here never get called for jury service.

Um .... could you explain that please!

Indeed.

I’ve already served and was happy to bring my rational consideration to the task.rather than an emotional response based on a personal incident.

I hope some people on here never get called for jury service.

Lathyrus3

If volunteers are willing to waive confidentiality there is nothing to prevent the Trust from making public the documentation which would exonerate them and make clear what has led to the suspension of the volunteers.

So why don’t they?

Subject access will indeed apply if the case comes to court, but I suspect very little has been recorded other than that which the volunteers have made public. It has all been done through word of mouth.

Which in itself is very poor management.

You suspecting doesn't prove anything.

Well Caslon, it was the Trust that identified them as a “whole group”, accused them of unacceptable behaviour and attitudes as a “whole group” and suspended them as a whole group, so that is the basis of their complaint.

Good management would have logged the instances of reported unacceptable attitudes and have dealt with those individuals concerned. If there are those who were not directly involved who have been caught up in the dispute, that is entirely due to the action of the Trust who chose to accuse and suspend the entire group.

No indeed, but it takes time. Especially if the organisation is obstructive.

In the meantime the National Trust could make public it’s dealings. Nobody is obstructing them.

Honestly * worried we’ll* you have a poor opinion of volunteers because you and your husband were treated badly by one. Can’t you see that rudeness by a volunteer is another facet of bad management, in that their attitude had not been addressed by the person whose job it was to manage volunteers.

After your complaint (or any previous ones) there should be a process, detailed and specific, to set in motion. That is part of the role of the manager.

If the process is not followed, that is bad management. The National Trust has utterly failed to carry out any due process or to abide by its own stated values.

I really don’t understand why anybody would defend such poor practice.

Lathyrus3

If volunteers are willing to waive confidentiality there is nothing to prevent the Trust from making public the documentation which would exonerate them and make clear what has led to the suspension of the volunteers.

So why don’t they?

Subject access will indeed apply if the case comes to court, but I suspect very little has been recorded other than that which the volunteers have made public. It has all been done through word of mouth.

Which in itself is very poor management.

They don't need to wait for a court case to do a subject access request.

Lathyrus3

And if someone is truly impossible to manage, there are due processes to manage that. None of which have been followed.

Whatever you’re personal experience of management, there really isn’t one thing that the NT has managed well in this case. Not the volunteers, not conflict, not the dismissals, not the subsequent publicity.

A disaster from start to finish. 😱

I think that’s a bit of a leap, unless all the 13 volunteers have individually confirmed that they personally had no communication about what had happened to lead to this situation? I’m not defending the Trust, but one or several volunteers must have been involved with them before, or it would not be referenced in the correspondence. I suspect several of the volunteers do know more than they are saying, and that this is a ringleader situation which has ended up badly for all of them, involved directly or not, which is obviously very hurtful for them.

I had files and regular supervision sessions with all my volunteers.
I don't think many big charities would be any different these days.

If volunteers are willing to waive confidentiality there is nothing to prevent the Trust from making public the documentation which would exonerate them and make clear what has led to the suspension of the volunteers.

So why don’t they?

Subject access will indeed apply if the case comes to court, but I suspect very little has been recorded other than that which the volunteers have made public. It has all been done through word of mouth.

Which in itself is very poor management.

Personally having been subjected to appalling treatment from a NT volunteer I would be happy if they are managing volunteers more strictly.

That should not have happened to you. I hope you reported it and I hope the NT addressed the issue with volunteer appropriately.

But the example being discussed is not " managing volunteers more strictly". It is "managing volunteers very badly" from the evidence that IS in the public domain.