Breech of contract?????

marybelle01

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I thoroughly disagree. Depending on the organisation, everyone might have their performance reviewed.

I think that the real issue here is that OP was invited to a performance review - with indications that a disciplinary could follow. So, it is not unreasonable to consider that this could be the investigation phase.

But where it goes wrong is that OP did not have evidence presented for a separate disciplinary phase.

The employer was absolutely clear in the letter what it was for and what it was to do. Semantics do not change that. A capability process or whatever it is called is a form of disciplinary process in itself. There was no need in legal terms to have a separate meeting. So I am afraid that I must throughly disagree with you too.

DVardysShadow

marybelle01 wrote: »

The employer was absolutely clear in the letter what it was for and what it was to do. Semantics do not change that. A capability process or whatever it is called is a form of disciplinary process in itself. There was no need in legal terms to have a separate meeting. So I am afraid that I must throughly disagree with you too.

Agreed the letter was clear enough. But you yourself said

marybelle01 wrote: »

The two are the same thing in essence - a performance review is a warning that your perfromance is unacceptable.

And I see that you have had to backtrack from that.

On the whole, I believe that you are making me out to say things which I did not say. In relation to the investigation phase, I did not say that there had to be one. I did say

So, it is not unreasonable to consider that this could be the investigation phase.

In particular, given that OP was not presented with any evidence prior to the meeting, it is entirely reasonable to consider that the meeting was no more than an investigatory meeting. From the ACAS COP http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1041

Inform the employee of the problem
9. If it is decided that there is a disciplinary case to answer, the employee should be notified of this in writing. This notification should contain sufficient information about the alleged misconduct or poor performance and its possible consequences to enable the employee to prepare to answer the case at a disciplinary meeting. It would normally be appropriate to provide copies of any written evidence, which may include
any witness statements, with the notification.

Clearly this has not happened. The OP has been ambushed.

Obviously OP has partially misunderstood what was going on. But equally, the employer has been at fault for either correcting OP's alleged mistakes and not letting her have the feedback to enable her to learn or for just telling porkies about alleged errors. And while OP could see that this was going off down the direction of a disciplinary, without charges and evidence, the employers process is flawed.

And you marybelle, who profess to know so much about this, should be doing a lot better than misleading people that a 'performance review' is always a disciplinary process. And you should be doing a lot better than grinding OP into the ground for her own misunderstandings when in fact there is a great deal wrong with the employers actions here.

marybelle01

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Agreed the letter was clear enough. But you yourself said



And I see that you have had to backtrack from that.

On the whole, I believe that you are making me out to say things which I did not say. In relation to the investigation phase, I did not say that there had to be one. I did say



In particular, given that OP was not presented with any evidence prior to the meeting, it is entirely reasonable to consider that the meeting was no more than an investigatory meeting. From the ACAS COP http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1041



Clearly this has not happened. The OP has been ambushed.

Obviously OP has partially misunderstood what was going on. But equally, the employer has been at fault for either correcting OP's alleged mistakes and not letting her have the feedback to enable her to learn or for just telling porkies about alleged errors. And while OP could see that this was going off down the direction of a disciplinary, without charges and evidence, the employers process is flawed.

And you marybelle, who profess to know so much about this, should be doing a lot better than misleading people that a 'performance review' is always a disciplinary process. And you should be doing a lot better than grinding OP into the ground for her own misunderstandings when in fact there is a great deal wrong with the employers actions here.

I did not say any such thing and there is no backtracking on my part. The employer called it a performance review so thats what it was. Just because you call it something different isnt relevant to anything. You are playing with semantics and if you wish to suggest that the OP does too, then you go ahead. Since the OP has only ten months employment then I am sure that doing so will achieve their desired end - they won't have to work for the employer any more.
The OP can be sacked tomorrow for pretty much any reason. The employer is giving her a chance to improve. And you are suggesting she !!!! around with semantics?

DVardysShadow

OOOH! marybelle is off on one.

marybelle01 wrote: »

I did not say any such thing and there is no backtracking on my part. The employer called it a performance review so thats what it was. Just because you call it something different isnt relevant to anything. You are playing with semantics and if you wish to suggest that the OP does too, then you go ahead. Since the OP has only ten months employment then I am sure that doing so will achieve their desired end - they won't have to work for the employer any more.
The OP can be sacked tomorrow for pretty much any reason. The employer is giving her a chance to improve. And you are suggesting she !!!! around with semantics?

You did say such a thing:

marybelle01 wrote: »

The two are the same thing in essence - a performance review is a warning that your perfromance is unacceptable.

And you backtracked

marybelle01 wrote: »

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Depends on the job. In my job a performance review is a yearly thing that everyone has.

Actually, in mine too.

You are making a bit of a twerp of yourself suggesting that I am plying with semantics, when you are resorting to denying you said things you actually did say.

As for saying that the employer is giving her a chance to improve, that is laughable. Their management of this situation is incompetent - demonstrably so.

As you say, with 10 months service, they could put OP out of the door straight away. So they don't even need a disciplinary process, if their objective is to get rid of OP. And if the objective is to improve OP's accuracy, training, monitoring and feedback is the right place to start, not a disciplinary. Hiding OP's mistakes and then throwing them back at her in this way is a ridiculous way of improving performance.

But you seem to think that the employer has been dealing with this well. It says more about you than it does about the employer.

marybelle01

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP then I am accurate and you are playing semantics. I have often wondered why so many people have you on ignore lists. It is demonstrably clear now.

The OP can chose to listen to whatever advice they want. God help them if it is yours.

DVardysShadow

marybelle01 wrote: »

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP then I am accurate and you are playing semantics. I have often wondered why so many people have you on ignore lists. It is demonstrably clear now.

The OP can chose to listen to whatever advice they want. God help them if it is yours.

No, you are not accurate. You don't even have recall of what you actually wrote.

As for being on ignore lists, how many ignore lists am I on and whose? Come on and surprise me with more than 1 name [other than yours], you daft biddy. You just really don't know one way or the other. [edit: I am sure dozens of people will read this and PM you to say that I am on their ignore lists :p:p]

Any one can take my advice with a pinch of salt. They should take yours with a cyanide pill.

sniggings

I think they are just making sure to build a case to sack her soon.

As said if this was designed to improve her performance then it has badly failed as she now wants to leave.

Finding mistakes and only informing the person on the day of a disciplinary is clearly not a good way to improve her performance.

OneYorkshireLass

Didn't the OP have a verbal warning at the end of June?

So why does she expect another verbal warning in July? Or did I miss something amongst all the fighting ..?

williacg

sniggings wrote: »

I think they are just making sure to build a case to sack her soon.

As said if this was designed to improve her performance then it has badly failed as she now wants to leave.

Finding mistakes and only informing the person on the day of a disciplinary is clearly not a good way to improve her performance.

I couldn't agree more, and unfortunately, it's becoming quite a common tactic for an employer to pull on an unsuspecting employee.

Savvy_Sue

OP, I don't think an appeal is going to help you at all, unless you go for an appeal to their better nature, because I do think they are heading towards dismissal, and you don't have many rights with less than a year's employment.

You don't want to work there any more, so I hope you are already job hunting.

However, if that's not going so well, I'd like to check whether the training you think you haven't had relates to processes, or your accuracy.

To explain that a bit better, your posts include a number of spelling and grammar mistakes. It could be that you just post in a hurry, while at work your written English is flawless. Or it could be that your written English isn't as good as it could be.

Now, you say you're typing quotes and order confirmations from the company system: if you need further training on how these work, what you need to check, what might be missed, what to look out for, then that's one thing. But if there are parts which you type up yourself, and it's your written English which constantly needs to be corrected, then that's another - and tbh a much harder problem to deal with IMO!