Sacking / releasing / letting go ... getting rid of someone who hasn't served 24 months..??

JustAnotherSaver

Have seen it mentioned here quite a bit as though it's no different to just going out and buying the morning newspaper - it's as simple as that.

As a manager my employer discussed with me the need to 'get rid' of a bad employee. Armed with my MSE knowledge, I said to them since they haven't yet served 24 months, you can get rid of them for anything that isn't basically discrimination ... something I learned on this very forum. I was told that it isn't that easy.

Hmm something doesn't add up then.

FFWD to the present day. Another employer is wanting to let one of their staff go who also hasn't served 24 months. They're poor at their job with no signs of improvement. They have a negative effect on the rest of the workforce. Whenever they 'get told' they seem to try and deflect it on to the easiest target in the workforce. They're at a stage where they should be able to do XYZ without being told as basic protocol and they don't get it. Various bits and bats that sum up that they're basically crap at their job and they're a bad egg having a negative knock on effect to what was a good team and a happy atmosphere. Employer seems to lack the necessary killer touch when it comes to making these decisions and seems to want to get rid but is worried about come back from it.

Employer concerned about claims against them which they could do without and wants to get rid of them swift and clean as possible.

So what backup is there to the stance I see on here that they essentially can get rid for almost anything within the 24 months? What links/documentation back this up? That within 24 months the employer could just say one random Monday morning, sorry Jane it isn't working out. I can't afford to keep you, bye ...... and then puts an advert in the paper the next Monday?

Dakta

Besides a bit of your own research, do you have a HR department or someone responsible for this side within your organisation that you can liaise with to ensure the process is done proper?

It does seem you can let go or be let go of before the 2 year period is over with very little recourse (bar the protected characteristics) - but I'd be surprised if your company doesn't have someone you can consult with to confirm the soundness before you wield the axe

JustAnotherSaver

It isn't my company for this specific case. Without going in to too much detail, where my partner works there's basically the boss (company owner) and then my partner in terms of the chain of command. Boss has taken partner to one side to say they want to get rid of bad employee (all the staff have complained numerous times i believe) but they're concerned about comeback on them. Partner asked if they can find proper documentation to make it as easy as possible with no comeback to get rid of this person.

Partners head is fried from reading and asked me if i knew of anything.

The best I could offer was "some people on MSE said and they're probably right but I have nothing to back up what they say".

gettingtheresometime

If I was your partner, I'd suggest to the Boss that they spend a few ££ discussing the situation with a suitable qualified professional. Might save them a lot of grief in the long run.

[Deleted User]

You can just say so long, paying relevant notice and holiday.
I worked with someone last year who survived just over 4 months without being properly managed, showed no willing in the role eg they saw it as 9-5 purely, their lunch breaks were over the allowed hour, they wouldn’t action anything or could be left alone in the office as they would just simply forget to do stuff (I certainly wasn’t paid or equipped to be their Manager) and they used to get away with saying they thought there was more then 2 weeks training when you would try to tell them gently it was the type of business where you could take calls by end of first day which 2 weeks one on one training should really have equipped them to a good degree in a very small easy going business although I’m convinced it was realised our managers were a little to relaxed themselves although they were looking out of window and turned up with no notepad day 1 so signs were there - my ex manager just said eventually we realise the person can’t do xyz and we will serve notice - they walked in on the Monday and there were tears and I think they kept up the grievance regards the lack of training in their view but gone straight away, it was unpleasant for me left in the office that week, to be fair to my ex boss he was decent to the person pulling them to one side to try and tell them kindly before allowing them short notice holiday in the week before the firing as if it was hoped they would come to the realisation themselves.  I nearly got in trouble because I wouldn’t go running to the management sooner with what could have been considered malicious gossiping from a disgruntled employee, that’s how it would have come across. They had us doing different jobs so I could only have an inkling of what was going on - The bosses truly had to decide for themselves to let the person go albeit it wasn’t set to get better. Enter the next person who was the temp waiting in the wings to demand flexible working and would chant we should be grateful for a job, I had had enough and decided to become the next bad cog! Getting rid isn’t always the miracle.

I started a new job recently but clear what daily targets I need to hit, management are constantly about and caring to ask to the point beyond first day how things are and new starter paperwork sets out progress review dates. I do fondly think if the ex colleague had same experience they may have been different. 

oh_really

HR by internet is not professional, the employer would be best placed by engaging an outside provider for advice, this may also put an end to online tittle tattle by third party.

elsien

Some companies have their own disciplinary procedures which try very hard to give people multiple chances and which go over and above the statutory requirements. They want to be fair employers. 

Those companies follow their own procedures and can be very reluctant to just wave bad staff goodbye.
I was a manager in a company like this and it was near impossible to performance manage bad staff out because HR just didn’t want to go there. 

avawat20

You are HR's worst nightmare manager. There is such a thing as wrongful dismissal too where there is no minimum length of service - the 2 years is in regards to unfair dismissal. Seek HR/legal advice and follow a fair process - note the word FAIR. Fair on the employee and you also have your reputation as an organisation and employer to consider... there can be a number of reasons for underperformance so give them a fair chance to explain and fair chance to improve before you 'get rid' *rolls eyes*

Mickey666

Does the company implement a regular performance and development (PDR) review for all staff?
The problem with dismissing under-performing staff is that it's not easy without establishing a formal record of poor performance and what the reasons might be.  Simplistic example - if the employer won;t provide the necessary tools how can the employee do their job?  Also, proving poor performance is difficult if there are no guidelines to define and measure performance. 

Hence some sort of PDR system.  Define performance goals, measure performance against those goals, identify strengths and weaknesses, agree a plan to address any weaknesses in order to improve performance.  If, after a suitable period of multiple PDRs an employee is still underperforming then dismissal proceedings can be started and are far less likely to result in claims of unfair dismissal.   The PDR should be a JOINT process between employee and manager.  It is NOT intended to beat down an employee, indeed even a well-performing employee should have an agreed development plan, one that will help them achieve promotion if applicable.  This might mean a commitment from the company for specific training courses etc.  Both the employee AND the company agree and commit to a development plan.

Unfortunately, so many companies don't take these things seriously, especially small companies, because they see it as an unnecessary overhead.  They then find it difficult to deal with an under-performing employee.  Many companies in this situation resort to redundancy - but legally it's only a job that can be made redundant, not an employee.  So making someone redundant for poor performance and then recruiting someone else to do that same job is going to put the employer at serious risk of an unfair dismissal claim.

Smarter employers will use the redundancy process to reorganise company operations in order to make the job redundant or change it sufficiently that the employee is no longer qualified for the role.  Industrial tribunals cannot comment on how a company decides to run its business.  Thus, if it decides it no longer needs a particular position, no matter how important it might seem (within reason) then a tribunal cannot argue the point and if the job no longer exists then the employee IS redundant.  By definition.  

Of course, legally the company has an obligation to find the redundant employee another job within the company if possible.  Hence, why companies often announce that a number of jobs are 'at risk' of being made redundant.  They may even invite the affected employees to consider if they could work somewhere else within the company, though they can't force them to take another job.  This approach is sometimes genuinely caused by business considerations and a wish to retain all employees, or it is sometimes cynically used to get rid of of an employee.  

In short, if a company wants to get rid of an employee - for whatever reason - then they'll find a way.  Quick and dirty might leave them open to a claim for unfair dismissal but with a bit of thought and planning it's fairly easily avoided.

Lomast

avawat20 said:

You are HR's worst nightmare manager. There is such a thing as wrongful dismissal too where there is no minimum length of service - the 2 years is in regards to unfair dismissal. Seek HR/legal advice and follow a fair process - note the word FAIR. Fair on the employee and you also have your reputation as an organisation and employer to consider... there can be a number of reasons for underperformance so give them a fair chance to explain and fair chance to improve before you 'get rid' *rolls eyes*

Wrongful dismissal would only apply if any parts of the contract were breached by the employer by dismissing the employee such as not giving correct notice or pilon, things like that.

I agree with getting proper advice but there is nothing in law that says they must be given a chance to improve, if they are not doing their job to an acceptable standard they should not expect to keep the job

JustAnotherSaver

I'm a little confused. 

I've read on here, more than once, that employers can get rid of you for almost anything within 24 months. People will detail scenarios and they'll get a short have you served 24 months? No? Unlucky type reply.

Aside from my partner asking about it as they've had it put to them from their employer, I also would like to know out of curiosity. 

And now it's a bit like backtracking. That blanket statement of no 24 months = unlucky you seems to be replaced with well we're not really sure. Everything depends. 

If it's as black and white as I've been reading on MSE for quite some time then where's the evidence to show this? I thought there would be some but now I'm wondering why there isn't.

Unless it isn't as black and white as first claimed on MSE?