Does 3 months in a job role make you highly experienced?

Noob4now · 16 March 2017 at 11:26PM

I am getting different stories from different people.

When I was sacked for an alleged misconduct issue, the employment tribunal judge said I should have have known better then to make the decision i made because, according to the judge, I was 'highly experienced' in the job role after only being in it for 3 months. Needles to say I lost the tribunal but thats another story.

When I apply for similar job roles and tell potential employers that I am 'highly experienced' in the job role after only doing it for 3 months, the ones that respond tell me that 3 months is hardly any time at all and not considered as 'highly experienced'.

If the employers are right, that would make the judge wrong.

Does 3 months in a job role make someone 'highly experienced' in that role?

I get that you would gain some experience in the role during your 3 months, but cant see how that would make you highly experienced, especially when the minimum training for that role is 12 months.

Masomnia · 16 March 2017 at 11:30PM

3 months working in a bank would be enough to know that you don't 'borrow' money from the till.

So, it depends.

Get over it and move on is my advice.

jobbingmusician · 16 March 2017 at 11:32PM

Generally I would agree with you. However, it does depend on the role. Someone with 3 months' experience in a burger bar might be the most experienced (non-managerial) employee there, so highly experienced.

I do wonder what you are hoping to achieve with the answer to your question, though. I don't reckon your chances of challenging a remark by a tribunal judge.

motorguy · 16 March 2017 at 11:37PM

Noob4now wrote: »

I am getting different stories from different people.

When I was sacked for an alleged misconduct issue, the employment tribunal judge said I should have have known better then to make the decision i made because, according to the judge, I was 'highly experienced' in the job role after only being in it for 3 months. Needles to say I lost the tribunal but thats another story.

When I apply for similar job roles and tell potential employers that I am 'highly experienced' in the job role after only doing it for 3 months, the ones that respond tell me that 3 months is hardly any time at all and not considered as 'highly experienced'.

If the employers are right, that would make the judge wrong.

Does 3 months in a job role make someone 'highly experienced' in that role?

I get that you would gain some experience in the role during your 3 months, but cant see how that would make you highly experienced, especially when the minimum training for that role is 12 months.

I'm not sure what you want us to say here?

3 months in pretty much any job doesnt make you "highly experienced" by any stretch of the imagination.

If the judge said that in that context, then are you expecting to be able to appeal his decision on that point based on the fact that subsequently you've put highly experienced on your CV and not got jobs? Although i'm thinking maybe the fact you got sacked for gross misconduct from your previous job could be a factor....

Maybe when they do tell you that you're not "highly experienced" you should tell them that the judge at the employment tribunal you were at because you were sacked for gross misconduct from your previous job said he thought you were "highly experienced" and thats why you lost the case?

Maybe you could ask the judge for a reference?

motorguy · 16 March 2017 at 11:38PM

Masomnia wrote: »

3 months working in a bank would be enough to know that you don't 'borrow' money from the till.

So, it depends.

Get over it and move on is my advice.

+1

Likewise i'd say 3 months flipping burgers in McDonalds and you could be considered that highly experienced that you're ready for promotion to Chip Fryer.

TELLIT01 · 16 March 2017 at 11:57PM

3 months doing a basic and repetitive job could certainly be long enough to be classed as experienced (define highly!), whereas 3 months from starting to train as a brain surgeon wouldn't be.

Mr.Generous · 17 March 2017 at 12:06AM

I have plumbed quite a few sets of taps and would consider myself perfectly capable of doing it - highly experienced? maybe, its a subjective comment, perhaps an off the cuff remark. I have probably spent less than 40 working days changing taps in total. Each set doesn't take that long. If I applied to be a master plumber they would probably tell me to get stuffed, but if I left a set !!!!ing out water because I claimed I wasn't experienced enough to know better I suspect that I would be held to account. You need to explain a bit more about the job for peoples judgement to be anything more than a guess.

marliepanda · 17 March 2017 at 1:51AM

Entirely depends what your alleged misconduct was.

Somethings you'd be expected to know before you even set foot in the door (common sense)
Some things you'd be expected to know after a couple of days to a week (the basics)
After three months you'd probably have a good grasp of the day to day of the job and what you could and couldn't do.

If you were sacked for gross misconduct after three months and the judge said you should have known better, well, should you?

MataNui · 17 March 2017 at 9:36AM

You are talking about different things. You dont get fired for misconduct for not doing the job perfectly. You get fired for stuff like ignoring company policy. They are not the same.

I work in IT in a pretty specialist area. After 3 months you still know squat and wouldnt be expected to be proficient. If you mess up you wouldnt get sacked for it. Thats not misconduct. On the other hand we have VERY strict security and access policies. These are hammered into you from day one. They are so strict that a single transgression is considered Gross misconduct. After 3 months in the office you would indeed be 'highly experienced' at knowing what is and is not acceptable in that regard and the consequences of any lapses of judgment.

Noob4now · 17 March 2017 at 12:01PM

It was a manager's job which a new company that took over the business threw me into with no training, interview or assessment. There were no procedures in place for the issue i was sacked for; I used common sense and made a judgement call which they disagreed with. Their excuse was, youre a manager so you should have known what to do. The judge took it further and said i was a 'highly experienced' manager and should have known better. Neither of them could tell me how i should have known what to do, or how i should have known better, when there were no procedures in place and i wasnt trained!

im not aiming to achieve anything here, just curious if 3 months would make someone 'highly experienced' and from the answers so far, it all depends on your job!

Thanks for the replies and yes i am thinking of asking the judge for a reference seeing as he considers my job experience so highly

marliepanda · 17 March 2017 at 12:23PM

You're still giving no information to help:

Stealing, violence, using somebody else's password, swearing at a customer, intimidating a staff member, not letting someone have a toilet break, cash mishandling - all of these things would be something you would know fairly quickly.

Something like taking an unusual route to solve a problem which was actually against company policy, wouldn't be. Promising something that was against company policy and costing them money, probably wouldn't be.

You say you made a judgement call that they disagreed with. Did that cause danger or monetary loss? Was there anyone available for you to call of contact before that call was made? Was it urgent and needed to be acted on there and then or could you have waited to get higher up permission?

Unless you give us some idea we have no clue whether the experience you had would be sufficient.

Does 3 months in a job role make you highly experienced?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free