Advice on employee please

Uncertain

capeverde wrote: »

Look the reason I have given him a week off is because he said he couldn't cope with things and was suffering from anxiety. He wanted the time off.

None of which is provable and is not the spin that will be put on your actions IF you end up facing a claim.

As I say, you may well get away with it. Indeed your intentions may be entirely honourable. Daisy and I are just explaining what could happen if you dismiss and your employee has access to legal advice. This could be from his house insurance, union membership or some clued up family member or friend.

Uncertain

capeverde wrote: »

Im not in a difficult position whatsoever.

Yes you are, you just don't seem to realise it!

capeverde wrote: »

If a person cant perform a required task I am well within my rights to terminate his employment after following the correct procedure.

Yes.

However, based on what you have posted here, you are not following correct procedure. In fact if he has access to some good advice you have just shot yourself in the foot!

capeverde

Uncertain wrote: »

None of which is provable and is not the spin that will be put on your actions IF you end up facing a claim.

As I say, you may well get away with it. Indeed your intentions may be entirely honourable. Daisy and I are just explaining what could happen if you dismiss and your employee has access to legal advice. This could be from his house insurance, union membership or some clued up family member or friend.

It is provable because he asked for the time off in front of other people.

SueC_2

capeverde wrote: »

Look the reason I have given him a week off is because he said he couldn't cope with things and was suffering from anxiety. He wanted the time off.

capeverde wrote: »

It is provable because he asked for the time off in front of other people.

Which could result in a situation where you have witnesses to the fact that he was so anxious and stressed about his work situation that he had to take sick leave.

And potentially you are about to sack him for it.

Which is why people are suggesting that you tread carefully and think through the possible consequences of your actions before leaping in and doing what you consider to be the 'nicest' thing for him.

As you proved with my previous post - everything is open to (mis)interpretation!

BobQ

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobQ
You seem to have a redundancy situation.

No he doesn't.

Your reason?

zzzLazyDaisy

BobQ wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobQ
You seem to have a redundancy situation.

No he doesn't.

Your reason?

Do you mean what is the reason for saying this is not a redundancy situation?

If so, the reason is because this situation does not meet the legal definition of redundancy.

The work needs doing, the employee isn't doing the job properly and if he is dismissed, he will need to be replaced by someone who can do the work. That is not a redundancy situation, it is an issue with the employee's performance/ability to do the job, which is a whole different ball game.

Savvy_Sue

I'm just wondering how you can give a glowing reference for someone who's not been up to the job?

Uncertain

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I'm just wondering how you can give a glowing reference for someone who's not been up to the job?

Very easily!

The type of reference we are talking about is an agreed form of words that would form part of a CA and be sent in response to any requests, rather than answers to specific questions. You simply stress all of the positives (and the OP has listed some in early posts) and ignore anything else.

Kind, honest, punctual, hardworking etc etc......

skivenov

I'm not saying your doing anything wrong specifically, but you might find a better answer if you take a different perspective on things. Analyse what's happened already. Hardworking and honest always seems to be harder to come by than able.

Managing's about communicating, and that's a two-way thing. You said you've had a talk with him. What came out of it from his point of view? Is he stressed? Confused? Ill? Has he expressed an opinion on what he'd like to be doing?

Stress and worry are self-perpetuating, you get stressed and worried about making mistakes, so you make them and get more stressed and worried. Is there a way you can break that cycle a bit?

Is there a more capable member of staff who would be willing to take him under their wing a bit? Or can you divide the roles a bit.

You say you've got him in despatch. Is anyone else there in there with him? Maybe you could get them to pick and him to pack?

Savvy_Sue

Uncertain wrote: »

Very easily!

The type of reference we are talking about is an agreed form of words that would form part of a CA and be sent in response to any requests, rather than answers to specific questions. You simply stress all of the positives (and the OP has listed some in early posts) and ignore anything else.

Kind, honest, punctual, hardworking etc etc......

Oh yes, I get that, but I'd call it more of a character reference. I'm just thinking how you respond to specific requests including "why did this person leave, would you employ them again?" I know you send the agreed reference, but it just seems to me that if you don't flag up the issues wrt actually doing the job / following instructions / learning how to do things, then there's a danger of this cycle being repeated, UNLESS the person self-regulates what they apply for fairly carefully. Which isn't always possible.

I just remember having someone on a kind of apprenticeship: it became apparent that they had learning difficulties, and despite the best efforts of several of us they were never going to become competent enough for our company.