Guildance on managing employee

jacques_chirac

Southend1 wrote: »

I wonder which EU employment law prohibits making comments on an Internet forum to the effect that an employer who sacks someone without due process just because he legally can is a bad or lazy one?!

I think you misunderstood ILW - I read it that he was referring to employers giving an opinion or reason why the employee was dismissed, which can result in litigation.

Southend1

jacques_chirac wrote: »

I think you misunderstood ILW - I read it that he was referring to employers giving an opinion or reason why the employee was dismissed, which can result in litigation.

Yes reading again I think you're probably right, thanks.

Though it's still extremely poor practice to dismiss without giving a reason!

isdnjonny

@op so reading between the lines you've set up a cleaning round that has grown off the back of your effort and quality , now you have expanded and require staff . its unlikely you will find employees with your own attention to detail but not impossible . it takes time to build a good team , remembering that you will be judged by the quality of your worst employee . with your company being in an infant state of development you do at this time need staff that are the best, you need to oversee / work alongside new employees , teach them , show them what standards you and your customers expect , before letting them be the face of your business, and still you may find certain customers may never be happy as its not you working at their property, note 1 to self the customer is always right
note 2 to self if the customer is wrong refer to note 1
so with that in mind staff will b1tch about each other , that's life. but the customer pays mine and their wages , I personally would work alongside the person set the standard then if when unsupervised goes back to old ways, just get rid I would imagine your business has mainly grown through customer satisfaction.

ValHaller

Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »

Giving due process in the first 2 years is exactly what ILW said. If you want to do more then that's great - but there is really no need.

You are confusing the letter of the law with due process. The law is deficient in respect of there being no requirement to give due process in the first 2 years of employment.

Where I first said to use due process, my reasoning was based on benefits to the business - finding out WHY someone is behaving in a certain way. Perhaps they are being thoroughly misled by other members of staff for their own purposes. Perhaps the induction process needs revision. Perhaps they were not even lying in the first place.

What an awful thing it would be to sack someone for lying - no Jobseekers if you kicked them out for GM - if all along you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and there is another explanation which is far more benign.

I cannot believe that someone here would not advocate that the employer at least spoke to the person to see if there was another explanation.

Mojisola

ValHaller wrote: »

I cannot believe that someone here would not advocate that the employer at least spoke to the person to see if there was another explanation.

I can't believe that you would think anyone on here would suggest sacking the person without being sure that the person had lied and had caused trouble with customers and other staff!

Funky_Bold_Ribena

ValHaller wrote: »

You are confusing the letter of the law with due process. The law is deficient in respect of there being no requirement to give due process in the first 2 years of employment.

Where I first said to use due process, my reasoning was based on benefits to the business - finding out WHY someone is behaving in a certain way. Perhaps they are being thoroughly misled by other members of staff for their own purposes. Perhaps the induction process needs revision. Perhaps they were not even lying in the first place.

What an awful thing it would be to sack someone for lying - no Jobseekers if you kicked them out for GM - if all along you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and there is another explanation which is far more benign.

I cannot believe that someone here would not advocate that the employer at least spoke to the person to see if there was another explanation.

You are getting confused about your opinion and...the letter of employment law. It may well be your opinion that businesses need to know why people are behaving in a particular way - but that's not the legal due process that the employer needs to keep within the law.

You are also assuming that the OP doesn't know whether they were lying; I am assuming that the OP knows they were lying...as they didn't say the employee may have lied; but they they had lied.

Your opinions and assumptions are really only relevant if the OP is hiring you to advise them. Until then, they really need to know what they can do if they need to. And the upshot of that is that - should they wish to - they can dismiss without giving any reason - as long as the reason is not one of the protected characteristics - within the first two years. Have you got that? Because that's the actual law.

Southend1

Sigh......

Is, this really still ongoing?

Yes we all know where the law stands on this.

BUT......

We don't have the full information about what has gone on in this case. We need to know if OP has already talked to the people involved to find out exactly what happened. We also need to know what OP has done in regard to induction and training of this person.

We should not be recommending OP just sack this employee without following due process, as ValHaller has said. To do so would be irresponsible.

Remember OP asked for advice on managing this person, not sacking him.

Southend1

Mojisola wrote: »

I can't believe that you would think anyone on here would suggest sacking the person without being sure that the person had lied and had caused trouble with customers and other staff!

We can't assume OP has investigated this thoroughly. She admits she is an inexperienced manager, so she may not have done all that is necessary. I'm sure other posters are trying to give good advice, but we must not assume someone has done something they haven't said they have done.

mandragora_2

I once saw one of those 'fly on the wall' programmes about an airline; potential new recruits had been invited to an interview and flown out for them at company expense. On the return leg of the journey they got 'bumped' back one flight to make space for paying customers (routine for employees of the company, and had been explained to them). One or two of the potential new employees thought that the best thing to do was kick up an enormous fuss about it. It didn't go down too well, and the job prospects of one woman took a spectacular nose-dive, with another one realising almost too late that she was hitching herself onto a not very productive cause by joining in. I will never forget the airline employee who was trying to deal with the situation turning to the camera and saying 'We don't train people to be nice. We hire nice people'. I'd normally be all for supporting and mentoring a new recruit, but I think in this case arrogance and dishonesty - well, they're hard to train out of someone, and quite easy to replace with other recruits who are affable and honest.

ValHaller

Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »

You are getting confused about your opinion and...the letter of employment law. It may well be your opinion that businesses need to know why people are behaving in a particular way - but that's not the legal due process that the employer needs to keep within the law.

You are also assuming that the OP doesn't know whether they were lying; I am assuming that the OP knows they were lying...as they didn't say the employee may have lied; but they they had lied.

Your opinions and assumptions are really only relevant if the OP is hiring you to advise them. Until then, they really need to know what they can do if they need to. And the upshot of that is that - should they wish to - they can dismiss without giving any reason - as long as the reason is not one of the protected characteristics - within the first two years. Have you got that? Because that's the actual law.

Never mind the law, I said 'due process', not 'legal due process'. And as to the point of whether or not OP has gotten to the bottom of it, if we knew she had, you would be quoting her. So if anyone is assuming, it is you, for advocating 'get rid' without getting to the bottom of it. My involvement in this thread is over 'getting rid' without getting to the bottom of it. Now, either you have assumed - yes assumed - that OP has spoken to the person in question, or you are advocating getting rid without even speaking to them. The latter is a position of nastiness.

I am fully aware that the law does not provide due process. I said that in the post you are replying to. I'll ignore the rest of what you have to say, because you are engaging with what you would like to think I said and not with what I actually said.