Failing the probation period

xapprenticex

what a thread...

sangie595

Hezzawithkids wrote: »

They're incredibly arrogant, going around telling everyone what an expert they are, claiming all the credit for our joint projects and openly criticizing other people's work. Imagine a typical jumped-up Apprentice candidate and you'll get the idea - but you can't sack someone just for being annoying can you?

But your colleague isn't on a public forum openly criticising your work, openly criticising the recruiting manager, and having decided that the best option is to sack them because they find this person annoying. And all that after, given the Christmas break, they have been in post for all of a few weeks!

And frankly, you have far too many details, which you have posted on here, about what should be confidential conversations about a staff member between two managers.

Sounds like a great company to work for with wonderfully supportive colleagues.

Kettle, black....?

FBaby

You role is to highlight their failings and the impact of these failings on the projects (assuming you are the project leader). Deciding whether this mean they should be sacked is nothing to do with you.

As a manager, if someone was going on about sacking one of my team member, my first thought would be to consider whether they felt threatened by them.

He (the newbie's manager) freely acknowledges the problems and has promised to do something about it but nothing has changed

How long ago since he made that acknowledgement? Weeks, months?

My manager has now asked for a formal meeting with the other manager with the objective of getting this person removed from my projects altogether.

Good, surely that's all that should matter to you? Why are you therefore asking about whether he can be sacked, unless you make it a personal issue?

Dan-Dan

first world problems , this threads pathetic

Carl31

a 6 month probation period is a time to allow a new person time to cut their teeth, show that they fit in, make the effort and apply themselves

They may have the skills, but it takes time to get used to a companies culture and way of working. They may very well be an expert in what they do, but to judge this on 3 months experience is a little harsh, i think most managers (possibly even your own) accept this, maybe thats why theyre not doing anything about it

It sounds like either you have a grudge, or have particularly high expectations of new starters

emsywoo123

darrrren wrote: »

You get annoying people everywhere.

Too true, there are some on this thread but I wouldn't report them just for being annoying.

JReacher1

daytona0 wrote: »

In my post the word "apprentice" can be interchanged with 'employee' or 'colleague', I just used it because I had a reasonable belief (which I backed up in the second post) that they were an apprentice.

I think it's pretty obvious that "apprentice" was used to reference the fact the employee is as irritating as the people who appear on the TV show "The Apprentice".

Undervalued

JReacher1 wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious that "apprentice" was used to reference the fact the employee is as irritating as the people who appear on the TV show "The Apprentice".

Quite!

I was just going to post a very similar comment but you beat me to it.

Seems quite a few people who have commented on this thread need to engage brain before keyboard!

A couple of people have answered the question in that, during the first two years, an employer doesn't even have to have a reason to dismiss fairly in law. Save for unlawful discrimination (and being incredibly irritating isn't a protected characteristic) the only possible comeback would be WRONGFUL dismissal (i.e breach of contract). Generally though company disciplinary procedures are not contractual. Even if they were and the employer chose not to follow them, the value on any claim would limited to wages for however many days it would have taken to do it properly. With tribunal fees to pay it is very unlikely a claim would be worthwhile.

To those saying "mind you own business" have you actually considered that this may be the OP's business? I really can't be bothered to plough through posting history but something rings a bell with me that the OP has their own company.

sangie595

JReacher1 wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious that "apprentice" was used to reference the fact the employee is as irritating as the people who appear on the TV show "The Apprentice".

Really? It may be now, but I didn't understand the reference either. Perhaps because I have never seen the show you refer to and it is peripheral to my consciousness. Kind of like, when talking about Big Brother, I mean my sister-in-laws husband. I read it to mean that the OP had a poor attitude towards apprentices. Not everyone has the time or inclination to fill their heads with the junk shows on TV. But it appears there is money to be made in producing shows about irritating people then. Just don't assume everyone watches them or knows that is what you are talking about.

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

To those saying "mind you own business" have you actually considered that this may be the OP's business? I really can't be bothered to plough through posting history but something rings a bell with me that the OP has their own company.

The OP says "we're in the same department but on different teams" - so not their company. And actually, their "business" is to explain to their manager any issues which impact on the delivery of the service and /or product. Not to then go on to assume that the person should be sacked, or that the other persons manager is incompetent or defensive. None of that is their business. And it certainly isn't their business to be trying to find out how easy it is to sack a person that they find "annoying" - if such action becomes necessary then I am sure the managers will have grasped the finer points of dismissal and won't need any advice from a subordinate. But if they do, they can post here. The point to which the OP has taken their interest in this matter is quite certainly none of their business.