Dismissed without reason during probation period

spiritus

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

I've been following this thread with interest because for all the bickering and childish squabbling no one has even considered that there might be something else happening here.

1. The OP may be telling the truth as they see it but the friend may not have been entirely truthful to them. Very few people are willing to admit, even to their own family, that they are crap at their job. It could be that the friend had been banging on about how much money he was going to earn from his new position so he wasn't going to lose face by telling his friend that he just couldn't cut it.

2. The firm may have had reasons other than poor performance for letting the friend go. It could be that he had lied on his CV and that the firm were expecting him to exceed their targets by a good margin rather than hitting them. In some sales orientated jobs the target is the barest minimum you are allowed to sell and you must exceed them for three months out of four. Many sales reps are allowed to negotiate their own salary levels based on past performance but falling short of that higher target too many times will result in dismissal, especially if there is a high "fall through" rate of clients cancelling contracts.

3. We don't know what sort of job it was. It might have been a commission only job. In this case the firm can drop you for no reason whatsoever without giving a reason because you're self-employed. The same applies to a builder who has done satisfactory work for a client in the past but is told that they're going to use another builder for a future project.

4. The OP's friend may have been made redundant or be surplus to requirements.

5. The friend may have been brought in to cover for a colleague's extended leave of absence with the idea that if he were exceptional he'd be kept on afterwards.

6. It could be that the firm has been getting too many complaints from clients about his behaviour. There could have been an issue of gross misconduct.

In short, the frim could use any one of these reasons to let someone go but for commercial reasons they's have to be kept confidential. Except the last one that is.

Thankyou but please don't be influence by suicidebob's post.


I warmly welcome comments or advice relating to the facts that I described.


Challenging my facts or speculating on whether they are entirely accurate is pointless as we could analyse every post on this forum in the same manner and nothing could be proven anyway.


1/ Please assume I am telling the truth (as is my friend)
2/ My friend has received regular assessments and was repeatedly told how well he was doing for the short amount of time he had been there. He had already surpassed targets for this month
3/ It was a sales oriented job-salaried.
4/ Not applicable
5/ Not applicable
6/ Unlikely but not impossible however, should complaints not have been communicated to the worker ?

timbo58

Undervalued is spot on.

A probationary period allows the employer and employee to see if they 'fit' properly.
No reason whatsoever needs to be given to an employee during probationary periods.

I would agree a decent employer would give reasons for this dismissal, however IME sometimes it is easier to simply say 'you aren't fitting in as well as we would have liked' and leave it at that, rather than having to go to the unnecessary aggro and expense of saying (example only) ' 2 colleagues have complained about you' and all the rigmarole that would then involve -a huge can of worms.


Not that I am saying that is what happened here, but that is one of my experiences in any case where a member of staff 'talked th e talk' but after a couple of months it became abundantly clear he had his own 'direction' and despite being told verbally more than once and in writing (similar) he was still acting against the senior managements wishes on various projects, let the company down at the last minute on a expo show and started taking sick leave willy nilly.
It's a risk to all companies taking on a member of staff that they will fit properly, have the desired work ethic and not suddenly become ill, since all of these have a cost implication far beyond the employees wages alone.

Undervalued

spiritus wrote: »

1/ Please assume I am telling the truth (as is my friend)
2/ My friend has received regular assessments and was repeatedly told how well he was doing for the short amount of time he had been there. He had already surpassed targets for this month
3/ It was a sales oriented job-salaried.
4/ Not applicable
5/ Not applicable
6/ Unlikely but not impossible however, should complaints not have been communicated to the worker ?

As previously explained, in the absence of any unlawful discrimination, with less than two year's service there is nothing he can do about it.

6/ Maybe, but again there is no redress.

JReacher1

It's quite expensive to hire people so companies only tends to get rid of "model" employees like the OP's friend for one of two reasons:

1) financial problems which mean they can't afford him
2)) the employee wasn't as good as has been implied by the OP.

If the company has no financial problems then they wouldn't just get rid of a good employee that was hitting his targets. It makes no business sense......

suicidebob

spiritus wrote: »

It isn't your job to question the facts.


If you're unwilling to believe what I have written then simply do not contribute to the thread. You have a choice.


Practically every thread can be questioned for its veracity but it's pointless doing so.


I've given you the facts as I know them. Either deal with what I have written or move onto another thread.

As said previously, companies don't like firing any employee, never mind their better ones, as recruiting is an expensive business.

Your friend was an excellent employee, excelling in every area and got fired because someone had a grudge, or your friend was a bit crap at his job and got let go. The correct answer is usually the most obvious one.

Anyway, I think my original point went over your head. Which was, that you getting involved on behalf of your friend will only confuse the message.

You have a skewed representation of the facts, you're unqualified in employment law, you're getting opinions from others who are similarly unqualified, you're then going to pass this information to your friend with your spin on it, who looks a fool when he writes to his boss quoting some paragraph from some website that you found when Googling random legal terms.

Get your friend to deal with it himself and he's more likely to get decent guidance.

spiritus

suicidebob wrote: »

As said previously, companies don't like firing any employee, never mind their better ones, as recruiting is an expensive business.

Your friend was an excellent employee, excelling in every area and got fired because someone had a grudge, or your friend was a bit crap at his job and got let go. The correct answer is usually the most obvious one.

Anyway, I think my original point went over your head. Which was, that you getting involved on behalf of your friend will only confuse the message.

You have a skewed representation of the facts, you're unqualified in employment law, you're getting opinions from others who are similarly unqualified, you're then going to pass this information to your friend with your spin on it, who looks a fool when he writes to his boss quoting some paragraph from some website that you found when Googling random legal terms.

Get your friend to deal with it himself and he's more likely to get decent guidance.

I have distilled the facts from my friend and presented them to the forum. Whether that version is skewed or 100% accurate is (or should be) irrelevant.


I was asking for advice on the facts that were presented NOT on the 101 possible variations of the facts. Quite simple really.


I won't be passing any information from this thread onto my friend as there doesn't appear to be one, universal answer.

Another_not_new_user

spiritus wrote: »

I won't be passing any information from this thread onto my friend as there doesn't appear to be one, universal answer.

Oh there is, and it has been clearly stated. Unless he can demonstrate one of the few exceptions permitting a claim of unfair dismissal from day one (statutory discrimination, enforcing a statutory right, trades union rights or whistleblowing) then he has no right to claim until two years. He doesn't have two years. So the universal answer is - he can be dismissed and the employer does not have to give any reason, follow any procedure, and must only pay notice and holiday pay due.