Or it could be that his wife's boss is acting under orders from his boss, who is taking orders from his boss, who is taking orders from his boss, who is taking orders from a committee set up to appease the union. In other words, his hands are tied and that he is compelled to follow procedure.

He probably didn't like making the call any more than she liked to receive it.

Poor boss. Doomed forever to blindly follow the commy unions as much as his/her heart yearns for freedom. He or she could have refused and then at the disciplinary meeting sought help from his/her union.

SO basically, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, in your opinion.

That's a bit silly, isn't it?

If this is correct: "Her boss (local authority) rang her today to tell her that he is giving her a formal warning for her sick record"

Then what he did is beyond "silly", whether he was "following orders" or not is completely immaterial. The bloke's an imbecile

Let's be clear though: what you have suggested is not even opinion, but the foisting of a scenario from a different case onto this one.

I think we could deduce that her boss was a clown by the fact the words works for local authority were used

Just looked up my companys for an example

... is very much. You're assuming, for instance, that the boss did not decide to make the call off his own bat.

You don't know that. Neither do I. He might have been told to do it. He might not have. But you're making an assumption.

Any of that SHOULD be done when someone returns to work or be dealt with by HR, the manager here has over stepped his authority.

Lets have a think about this

I know where you work, you know what I do, we both know what ROBINSON does.......

waste of time anyone?

I'd say lettings are a bit quiet and the girls in the office are having none of his "shenanigans" after the whole Rennard thing...

Hope you get things sorted.

Whats Malcolm Walker go to do with this ?