Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

What can I say except that your “understanding “ seems to be entirely at variance with that expressed by the volunteers.

The judgement really has to be whether a group of dedicated volunteers, who have worked for years in the gardens, voluntarily and with real dedication would give that up for the sake of attending a training meeting. Especially since in the past they have attended many such meetings.

Or whether a large organisation with a fixed agenda, which has been the subject of much criticism in last few years for their autocratic decision making is desperately trying to save face by unsubstantiated allegations.

I think most people can make a sound judgement on that.

The need to keep up to date with training is a requirement for insurance and I understand that was an early issue (before any publicity). If you know some of the volunteers, Lathyrus, maybe ask them about that and why they did not take up the offer of a meeting before going to the press.

Nacky

I live locally and know some of those involved.

Really?

Obviously different people to the ones I know🤔🙄

I live locally and know some of those involved.

“I understand the volunteers were offered a meeting and decided not to attend”

Could you post where you got that information?

The volunteers said ‘ we have attended numerous courses and are well aware of our responsibilities “.

The initial dismissal only referred to “attitudes and values” It was only after negative publicity in the press that the National Trust raised an issue of training.

It was partly an insurance issue as all NT volunteers and staff are required to undertake training to be insured as is the case with other charities. I understand that the volunteers were offered a meeting and decided not to attend. Very sad all round as these people had given so much of their time and energy but as a previous poster indicated what has been in the press is not the whole story.

Surely health and safety training should take place during 'working hours', whether you are an employee or volunteer.

Surely it is time someone in the NT realised that when in a hole, stop digging.

They should accept that the way they dealt with the supposed issues has not been helpful and made the situation worse. They should aplogise graciously, re-instate the volunteers. Undertake training during the volunteers usual hours and start again.

Madgran77

*Failing to do health and safety training is specific and very important.*

Yes. But how the whole thing is approached to get everyone on board with that makes all the difference.

That goes for both sides. Some volunteers seem to think they are in charge, some get taken advantage of. None of us know enough about this to judge. If the NT have good reason with evidence of why they needed to do this they can't come online and share it so we only hear one side. We don't know the whole story

Failing to do health and safety training is specific and very important.

Yes. But how the whole thing is approached to get everyone on board with that makes all the difference.

StoneofDestiny

There are increasing issues as to how volunteers are treated at the National Trust. Remember, these people work unpaid, week in week out, and very often have more professional experience than those in the National Trust.
Being asked to complete various ‘training’ documents in your own time, many of which don’t even apply to you at all, is ridiculous. All they have to do is do a days training and get it out of the way, and trim the training to fit the post the volunteer is doing. Too often the National Trust tries to fit one cap on all heads!
There is a dearth of real management ability in the National Trust at every level and few have worked anywhere except the National Trust - their idea of normality is therefore very shrunken and narrow.
The National Trust put out surveys to volunteers to complete - but the questions are so skewed and don’t really give the scope to elicit the problems volunteers face. In other words - skewed to get the answers they want.
Getting rid of volunteers without explanation is incredibly disrespectful and at odds to what the National Trust claim their values are. Unbelievable - or increasingly, maybe not.

I totally agree.
And where will the NT be without volunteers? The gardens alone needs plenty of them, then there’s the other jobs within the houses and tearooms.

I used to volunteer in a charity shop. Sorting out the bags of donations. Nice a year we had a morning session for shop volunteers where the Health and Safety aspects of our role were covered and updated.

Then new management switched to an on-line training model. The package contained Health and Safety fir every role in the Hospice. Food safety, handling patients everything. It all had to be completed. All of it.

I’m pretty quick at dealing with that sort of stuff and I reckoned around 20 hours. Some of the volunteers found the language impossible to grasp, especially the medical terms.

It was just lazy, lazy management that couldn’t be bothered.

Just like the National Trust. And just like the Trust they lost the people that actually keep things running.

Lathyrus3

They were asked to carry out a generic series of on-line training in their own time, in addition to the hours they normally gave.

The on-line training covered all areas, much of which was not relevant to their roles. It was a one size fits all, employees at all levels and volunteers in every role.

The volunteers asked for health and safety training which was relevant to them and necessary for them. Instead of spending hours completing on-line tasks that covered roles they would never undertake. Their request was refused.

If this was an employee at a tribunal , the management would be held at fault. It is management responsibility to ensure that employees and volunteers receive relevant, necessary training for their role.

There really is no excuse for the appalling management in this case.

If they were volunteers everything they did was in their own time. If part of the conditions of their volunteering was to complete the online training then they needed to do it.

They weren't employees so it is irrelevant what would apply to employees. Paid work brings different rights and responsibilities. Personally I think people should be paid for work.

They were asked to carry out a generic series of on-line training in their own time, in addition to the hours they normally gave.

The on-line training covered all areas, much of which was not relevant to their roles. It was a one size fits all, employees at all levels and volunteers in every role.

The volunteers asked for health and safety training which was relevant to them and necessary for them. Instead of spending hours completing on-line tasks that covered roles they would never undertake. Their request was refused.

If this was an employee at a tribunal , the management would be held at fault. It is management responsibility to ensure that employees and volunteers receive relevant, necessary training for their role.

There really is no excuse for the appalling management in this case.

Madgran77

*Monica that makes no difference whatsoever. they group are entitled to be given examples of the specific behaviours that caused the problem. As i said anyone can make vague generic criticims like this. If these volunteers were employees there would be a grievance procedure and I think that something like this should exist for vounteers as well. Especially as the NT consider themselves to be the quintessence of perfect moral standards*

I absolutely agree Monica. Even if the group or individuals have not followed procedures or whatever they are still entitled to specific examples of what behaviours etc have caused the problem. Even before protocols or procedures, frankly appropriate communication about a problem is both good management AND good manners!

Failing to do health and safety training is specific and very important.

nanna8

First rule of organisations like this must, absolutely must,be to look after and respect your volunteers. Every dissatisfied volunteer will on average tell at least 10 others why they have been badly treated. Big mistake on the part of the NT.

I've told far more people about how volunteers upset me and my husband. I'll never give NT a penny. They need paying customers.

Yes, I'm sure you are right, Madgran77.

NotSpaghetti No, but feedback at reviews is "usual" I would say

Yes but the quality of the feedback is key isn't it. Giving difficult feedback in a way that it can be "heard"" by the person (rather than being affronted or upset etc) is an art....and I suspect is missing in this scenario judging by what others with recent experience of NT management have said.

This is shameful behaviour by the National Trust.

But behaviour that now seems to be the norm for this group.

react = reflect

NotSpaghetti

IS there a grievance procedure?
Probably...

Not for volunteers apparently. It was one of the comments made by one of the group on Facebook.

That the National Trust has impugned their characters “Instances of behaviour, language or attitude that do not react the respectful and inclusive culture that we strive for” and yet refuse to discuss this or give examples.

The group believe this presents a totally untrue character of the group and of them as individuals and could well lead to hostility towards them on-line and within their local community.

I think they have a right to feel aggrieved. If they were employees a tribunal would demand the proof of specific of instances. But volunteers who have given time and energy have no redress.

This is shameful behaviour by the National Trust.

IS there a grievance procedure?
Probably...

Monica that makes no difference whatsoever. they group are entitled to be given examples of the specific behaviours that caused the problem. As i said anyone can make vague generic criticims like this. If these volunteers were employees there would be a grievance procedure and I think that something like this should exist for vounteers as well. Especially as the NT consider themselves to be the quintessence of perfect moral standards

I absolutely agree Monica. Even if the group or individuals have not followed procedures or whatever they are still entitled to specific examples of what behaviours etc have caused the problem. Even before protocols or procedures, frankly appropriate communication about a problem is both good management AND good manners!

NotSpaghetti

You are right M0nica but this had to be a generic letter as it was written to a group.

that makes no difference whatsoever. they group are entitled to be given examples of the specific behaviours that caused the problem. As i said anyone can make vague generic criticims like this.

If these volunteers were employees there would be a grievance procedure and I think that something like this should exist for vounteers as well. Especially as the NT consider themselves to be the quintessence of perfect moral standards.

The National Trust are going very woke. I pay a lot of money to them to find out certain visitors get it for free. A lot of people have stopped paying and are boycotting.

lixy

Fair enough then - face book is not the place for that kind of debate, and volunteers should have known better.

It’s called freedom of speech.