Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

NotSpaghetti

It was the volunteers who went to the media.
They rejected a meeting.

My information is that volunteers have never been offered a meeting to discuss the allegations in the emails sent to them.

They have more than once requested meetings both as a group and as individuals and have been refused.

A final email from the Trust states categorically that there will be no discussion or further communication.

I think you are wrong to post that the volunteers have refused a meeting to discuss the allegations against them, but if you can show me that they did I will retract. Otherwise I think perhaps you have taken the your information from another poster?

I’ve read the summary of what has happened now, including the letters from the National Trust, which were shared by one of the volunteers, and what came across to me was that there were a small number of volunteers trying to rule the roost, and disagreement between the volunteers as well as with the new manager and others. Mottistone has not dispensed with the services of all volunteers, just this group. I agree it’s not been handled at all well by the National Trust, but I do think from reading the letters that the volunteers have played a big part in it escalating as it has.
www.yahoo.com/news/articles/national-trust-gardeners-forced-clash-171512205.html

Interesting to read!

Yes it has been handled badly by the NT .... the emails are inflammatory in tone and comment because communication is being kept to a minimum. Frankly it is ridiculous and a guaranteed red flag to a bull to announce, by email, a "pausing" and tell volunteers not to attend suddenly and arbitrarily! And presumably if these volunteers have been doing as described later on by NT management then it is downright stupid of management to do the "red rag" model thus inevitably winding up an apparently "difficult" group of volunteers immediately! How ridiculous is that.

Which just brings me back to this has has been caused by very poor management of change with key people (in this case long serving volunteers). 🙄

Nowhere that I can see is a meeting offered (should have been early on in my view)

Lathyrus3

How about the right to defend unsubstantiated accusations that impugn your character and are placed on record.

Can we agree on that?

And given that the organisation that has made the accusations refuses any discussion of their allegations, n face or written, what steps do you think should be taken to clear their reputations?

Where are they on record?

Why don't they just do a subject access request and then they can see what is on record about them.

Madgran77

Interesting to read!

Yes it has been handled badly by the NT .... the emails are inflammatory in tone and comment because communication is being kept to a minimum. Frankly it is ridiculous and a guaranteed red flag to a bull to announce, by email, a "pausing" and tell volunteers not to attend suddenly and arbitrarily! And presumably if these volunteers have been doing as described later on by NT management then it is downright stupid of management to do the "red rag" model thus inevitably winding up an apparently "difficult" group of volunteers immediately! How ridiculous is that.

Which just brings me back to this has has been caused by very poor management of change with key people (in this case long serving volunteers). 🙄

Nowhere that I can see is a meeting offered (should have been early on in my view)

Have you seen all correspondence and minutes of any meetings? If you haven't you can't know all the details so your criticism of the management is hardly fair.

Have you seen them? Then your criticism of volunteers is hardly fair either 🤔

NT can produce all the evidence to exonerate themselves if it’s there.

But they won’t - or can’t.

You know, the letters offering training, the letters asking why the training was not attended, the letters with specific instances of unacceptable behaviour, the letters offering a meeting to discuss the issues ( that is said the volunteers turned down) Lots of evidence that the National Trust has managed the situation well and fulfilled its self stated standards of respect for all. I’m sure the volunteers would waive any confidentiality issues that might be raised.

Then we’d all know who was responsible for this debacle wouldnt we?

There are different styles of management. The National Trust and it’s supporters are obviously happy with the style they have chosen. It wouldn’t be one I was happy with as volunteer, employee or manager. It seems to be one that many, many of its former supporters are concerned about.

Volunteers can’t go to tribunal but we may yet see this case in court and then all will be clear.

theworriedwell Have you seen all correspondence and minutes of any meetings? If you haven't you can't know all the details so your criticism of the management is hardly fair

No I haven't obviously! But throughout this discussion I have been clear that from what we have seen and what IS in the public arena, there are very clear aspects of poor leadership and management practice which has exacerbated a potentially difficult situation.

I have also been clear that I suspect from what is in the public domain that there has been difficult behaviour from long serving volunteers who don't like change! Which makes the importance of managing the change well even greater.

The link shared of the NT emails etc is absolute clear evidence of poor practice - especially in the light of the claims made about the volunteers behaviour. To a good manager/leader, such behaviours should have highlighted the even greater need for both transparent and open leadership to avoid the debacle the NT has ended up with.

Lathyrus You know, the letters offering training, the letters asking why the training was not attended, the letters with specific instances of unacceptable behaviour, the letters offering a meeting to discuss the issues ( that is said the volunteers turned down) Lots of evidence that the National Trust has managed the situation well and fulfilled its self stated standards of respect for all. I’m sure the volunteers would waive any confidentiality issues that might be raised.

Exactly. All good leadership practice.

"Respect for ALL* Hmm!

Lathyrus3

Have you seen them? Then your criticism of volunteers is hardly fair either 🤔

NT can produce all the evidence to exonerate themselves if it’s there.

But they won’t - or can’t.

You know, the letters offering training, the letters asking why the training was not attended, the letters with specific instances of unacceptable behaviour, the letters offering a meeting to discuss the issues ( that is said the volunteers turned down) Lots of evidence that the National Trust has managed the situation well and fulfilled its self stated standards of respect for all. I’m sure the volunteers would waive any confidentiality issues that might be raised.

Then we’d all know who was responsible for this debacle wouldnt we?

There are different styles of management. The National Trust and it’s supporters are obviously happy with the style they have chosen. It wouldn’t be one I was happy with as volunteer, employee or manager. It seems to be one that many, many of its former supporters are concerned about.

Volunteers can’t go to tribunal but we may yet see this case in court and then all will be clear.

I haven't criticised the volunteers, I don't know them. I have said there are cases where people can't be managed and that isn't automatically the managers fault.

Good example of how one side can misrepresent the other.

Issuing letters would be inappropriate due to privacy issues. Let the volunteers do their subject access request and then produce it all, their information so they can publish it.

I take it you haven't seen all the information
Prejudging is pointless. Personally having been subjected to appalling treatment from a NT volunteer I would be happy if they are managing volunteers more strictly.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

theworriedwell

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

Um .... could you explain that please!

It’s an emotional response.

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

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?

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.

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.