being dismissed for poor performance

happenstance

liney wrote: »

The 48 hours stands as long as it does not take you below the minimum wage when averaged out. https://www.gov.uk/overtime-your-rights/overview

You mention 'charge these hours in.' Are you a contractor?

You are being militant, with your 'work to rule' attitude.

The issue is if the hours are not charged, then legally I'm not working the 100+ hour weeks. Its in my contract to record hours accurately but management make that difficult.

I'm only following the rules determining dress code.

It was counter productive working long hours, I still personally don't think its wrong to only work the normal working hours my contract states 9-5-30 mon-fri. I did also have a doctors note to work these "reduced" hours and a recommendation from occupational health. But we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that.

happenstance

Vectis wrote: »

Have to say, and you probably wont like it, but the longer this thread has gone on the more difficult and stubborn you come across.

You seem to have a number of issues with your employers. You keep repeating that you will work to your contracted hours etc and that's it. You can't seem to heed advice about your appearance (you're just following the handbook etc). You also don't seem to have much of a relationship with the other employees (snide remarks, in your opinion, made to you). Thinking that a manager deliberately tripped you up (and I can't believe you actually reported that to your HR Dept!) comes across as paranoid.

I think you need to get out, now. Look for another job. I'd guess your employer can't sack you straight off, and you'll possibly just get a warning, but they can manage you out eventually if they know what they're doing. Leave before that happens.

Sorry if that comes across as a bit tough, but you don't come across well from what you've said here.

I get it, its difficult to clearly debate something your emotional attached to as it is for other people to pass judgement on you with limited information.

Re appearance everyone seams to jump to the wrong conclusion that as I don't shave daily and wear a polo neck that I must be scruffy and dont iron...

I'm following the hand book for the polo neck as the hand book clearly states it. Never has anyone said anything about non ironed polo neck, its the polo neck its self.

I'm in a bit bored of polo necks, they are listed in the dress code, I wear them. Manager likes to dress formally and has asked me to do so and I didn't.

I work my contracted hours after being signed off due to working too long hours for several years.

To be fair you don't know enough to pass judgement on my relationship with other employees.

ILW

happenstance wrote: »

The issue is if the hours are not charged, then legally I'm not working the 100+ hour weeks. Its in my contract to record hours accurately but management make that difficult.

I'm only following the rules determining dress code.

It was counter productive working long hours, I still personally don't think its wrong to only work the normal working hours my contract states 9-5-30 mon-fri. I did also have a doctors note to work these "reduced" hours and a recommendation from occupational health. But we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that.

I would suggest it is not your doctor that pays the wages.

happenstance

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest it is not your doctor that pays the wages.

Do you think employers should diagnose and treat their workers mental health?

ILW

happenstance wrote: »

Do you think employers should diagnose and treat their workers mental health?

No , but they also should not be paying people to take time off because they are not up to the the job which others are doing fine.

silvercar

Yes I know legally they can ask me to do excess hours, but on the floor the management say I can't charge these hours in. Expected to work for free is the issue. When I contact HR to raise this issue all of a sudden management say im a low performer.

happenstance wrote: »

The issue is if the hours are not charged, then legally I'm not working the 100+ hour weeks. Its in my contract to record hours accurately but management make that difficult.

I'm only following the rules determining dress code.

It was counter productive working long hours, I still personally don't think its wrong to only work the normal working hours my contract states 9-5-30 mon-fri. I did also have a doctors note to work these "reduced" hours and a recommendation from occupational health. But we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that.

What is the issue, being expected to work long hours or not being paid for working long hours?

If your health is not up to working long hours, then surely whether the company is [offering to] pay for them or not is not the issue. What is the issue is whether you can fulfil the role on a 37.5 hour week.

Tancred

happenstance wrote: »

Hello,

My employer is calling me to a meeting tomorrow as i've had low in my performance as decided by my managers.

I don't agree with this low performance and feel it was awarded because I was signed off work a month this year with exhaustion and when I returned to work did tell management that I'm not prepared to work longer than my contracted hours. Sadly I think not working for free in the evenings and weekends counts as low performance in their books.

Can they just dismiss me with the notice in my contract and without any severance pay if it is due to them claiming im a low performer?

thanks

Usual sh*t comments from the usual ars*holes. Oh dear.

If you are a member of a union then make sure you get their help, otherwise seek some legal advice. Many employers cook up invented stories of poor performance to get rid of excess staff without having to go through the redundancy process - sad but true. They still need to pay you the notice period though, unless it's for gross misconduct.

goonarmy

Op you seem to be running into similar attitudes here. Join a union, any union. They will back you up and take your money for the privalege. Obviously one that matches the business your in will be best. Also how does your appearance affect our work? Are you customer facing? My appearance has no affect on my work and id reasonably suspect its the same for you. Old bill and other public services have greatly relaxed there appearance rules, outdated employeers need to catch up. And while you seem unhappy are you looking elsewhere? I suspect your employ.ent will not last much longer, wether thats yiur choice remains to be seen. And on the way out clear a desk. Your boss sounds like a right nugget.

happenstance

ILW wrote: »

No , but they also should not be paying people to take time off because they are not up to the the job which others are doing fine.

You think that people should not be paid for time off sick?

happenstance

silvercar wrote: »

What is the issue, being expected to work long hours or not being paid for working long hours?

If your health is not up to working long hours, then surely whether the company is [offering to] pay for them or not is not the issue. What is the issue is whether you can fulfil the role on a 37.5 hour week.

Both really.

I don't want to work a significant amount of time for free, it will end up i'll be better off at Tesco per hour basis soon.

I don't want to be seen as a low performer because I "only" do 40 hours a week.

I'm perfectly fine to work the 40ish hours a week, but will probably get unwell again if I go back to doing over double this.