Probation Period Extended due to non job role reasons?

shadowfortress

LinLui said:

Jemma01 said:

..... Most of us would absolutely dismiss an employee that's not working well with people. 

Actually, "most of us" managers:

• Would not wait five and ahalf months to mention something that impacted on job performance
• Would identify issues, explain and quantify, and set out expectations 
• Would want to see improvements to enable an employee to be successful
• Wouldn't leap to conlcusions based on no evidence - the fact that the OP didn't deny it does not mean that they know it is true nor that they think it insignificant; especially since the OP has made it clear that the comment was made out of the blue, unsupported by any evidence, and "random", which actually suggests that they don't understand where this comment has come from.
• And absolutely wouldn't dismiss someone unless there was no other choice.

Just because someone doesn't have employment protections shouldn't mean that managers should dismiss with impunity - that is bad management.

You have just made up a random bunch of "facts" that are nowhere mentioned in the OP and laid into them for being "unprofessional". "Most of us" managers would try to elicit some facts before coming to conclusions. 

Thank you for the professional and courteous reply.

The comment about my spouse has to do with a political belief that my wife has that is clearly not in line with my employer. My wife has absolutely no affiliation in any way to my company/employer. Apparently, I had said something in a random chat to some colleagues that somehow reached my employer. Wouldn't this fall under one of the seven protected characteristics?

The comment about "not being a good team player" related to some activities that my employer wanted me to do outside of working hours.

My main point is, that they said my job performance was good, and to me, a proper and good appraisal should only encompass that, not on the the two items I wrote about above.

The only difference between "passing my probation" and having it extended is the amount of notice that myself or the employer has to give each other.

elsien

shadowfortress said:

LinLui said:

Jemma01 said:

..... Most of us would absolutely dismiss an employee that's not working well with people. 

Actually, "most of us" managers:

• Would not wait five and ahalf months to mention something that impacted on job performance
• Would identify issues, explain and quantify, and set out expectations 
• Would want to see improvements to enable an employee to be successful
• Wouldn't leap to conlcusions based on no evidence - the fact that the OP didn't deny it does not mean that they know it is true nor that they think it insignificant; especially since the OP has made it clear that the comment was made out of the blue, unsupported by any evidence, and "random", which actually suggests that they don't understand where this comment has come from.
• And absolutely wouldn't dismiss someone unless there was no other choice.

Just because someone doesn't have employment protections shouldn't mean that managers should dismiss with impunity - that is bad management.

You have just made up a random bunch of "facts" that are nowhere mentioned in the OP and laid into them for being "unprofessional". "Most of us" managers would try to elicit some facts before coming to conclusions. 

Thank you for the professional and courteous reply.

The comment about my spouse has to do with a political belief that my wife has that is clearly not in line with my employer. My wife has absolutely no affiliation in any way to my company/employer. Apparently, I had said something in a random chat to some colleagues that somehow reached my employer. Wouldn't this fall under one of the seven protected characteristics?

The comment about "not being a good team player" related to some activities that my employer wanted me to do outside of working hours.

My main point is, that they said my job performance was good, and to me, a proper and good appraisal should only encompass that, not on the the two items I wrote about above.

The only difference between "passing my probation" and having it extended is the amount of notice that myself or the employer has to give each other.

Your wife's political views are not a protected characteristic for herself in her own employment, let alone in terms of your job role. Personally I would be politely raising that my wife is not employed by them and her views have no bearing on my ability to do my job. 

For the  out of hours work, is that anywhere in your contract at all - even if not in some jobs there is an expectation of some give and take in that respect so it may or may not be relevant depending on your organisation's work culture and what it was they were asking you to do and when.  Tends to apply more to high fligher jobs though as a rule. You have to decide what your boundaries are and if they aren't in line with the organisational culture then this may not be the job for you in the longer term. 

Have they given you SMART objectives to meet in order to pass your probation - if not then ask for them. You can't prove you are meeting them if no-one has told you what they are. 

Hoenir

shadowfortress said:

LinLui said:

Jemma01 said:

..... Most of us would absolutely dismiss an employee that's not working well with people. 

Actually, "most of us" managers:

• Would not wait five and ahalf months to mention something that impacted on job performance
• Would identify issues, explain and quantify, and set out expectations 
• Would want to see improvements to enable an employee to be successful
• Wouldn't leap to conlcusions based on no evidence - the fact that the OP didn't deny it does not mean that they know it is true nor that they think it insignificant; especially since the OP has made it clear that the comment was made out of the blue, unsupported by any evidence, and "random", which actually suggests that they don't understand where this comment has come from.
• And absolutely wouldn't dismiss someone unless there was no other choice.

Just because someone doesn't have employment protections shouldn't mean that managers should dismiss with impunity - that is bad management.

You have just made up a random bunch of "facts" that are nowhere mentioned in the OP and laid into them for being "unprofessional". "Most of us" managers would try to elicit some facts before coming to conclusions. 

Thank you for the professional and courteous reply.

The comment about my spouse has to do with a political belief that my wife has that is clearly not in line with my employer. My wife has absolutely no affiliation in any way to my company/employer. Apparently, I had said something in a random chat to some colleagues that somehow reached my employer. Wouldn't this fall under one of the seven protected characteristics?

The comment about "not being a good team player" related to some activities that my employer wanted me to do outside of working hours.

My main point is, that they said my job performance was good, and to me, a proper and good appraisal should only encompass that, not on the the two items I wrote about above.

The only difference between "passing my probation" and having it extended is the amount of notice that myself or the employer has to give each other.

Companies sometimes have distinct cultures. The glue that binds a collective assortment of very different of people to create a highly successful team. When somebody , however competent at their job,  doesn't make the effort /show willingness to embrace the culture. Then questions as to their long term suitability will arise. No one is indispensable. Someone else will come along and seamlessly fill the role. 

kempiejon

@shadowfortress Re protected characteristics and your wife's political beliefs and so by association indirect discrimination against you I think you have an interesting point. I would say yes but my knowledge is probably out of date. I remember we looked at some case law relating to some political beliefs and some anecdotal case relating to how political beliefs impacted other employees. But that was direct discrimination.

If you feel you have been indirectly discriminated against because of your wife's views you could lodge a grievance. It might b worth taking advice if you thought about pursuing it but to what gain? In one of my roles when I was aware of discrimination and the people affected tried to take action I found being right didn't always help, depends on your organisation and ones willingness to threaten or be litigious.

lincroft1710

It may be that your employer thought that you did not participate in the out of hours' activities because your wife was against this as it clashed with her political views. 


Unless your wife is well known in the community for voicing her political views or has taken some form of direct action, I cannot see any other reason why your employer would refer to her

elsien

Putting a grievance in  during your probation period is only likely to go one way,  I feel.

LinLui

elsien said:

shadowfortress said:

LinLui said:

Jemma01 said:

..... Most of us would absolutely dismiss an employee that's not working well with people. 

Actually, "most of us" managers:

• Would not wait five and ahalf months to mention something that impacted on job performance
• Would identify issues, explain and quantify, and set out expectations 
• Would want to see improvements to enable an employee to be successful
• Wouldn't leap to conlcusions based on no evidence - the fact that the OP didn't deny it does not mean that they know it is true nor that they think it insignificant; especially since the OP has made it clear that the comment was made out of the blue, unsupported by any evidence, and "random", which actually suggests that they don't understand where this comment has come from.
• And absolutely wouldn't dismiss someone unless there was no other choice.

Just because someone doesn't have employment protections shouldn't mean that managers should dismiss with impunity - that is bad management.

You have just made up a random bunch of "facts" that are nowhere mentioned in the OP and laid into them for being "unprofessional". "Most of us" managers would try to elicit some facts before coming to conclusions. 

Thank you for the professional and courteous reply.

The comment about my spouse has to do with a political belief that my wife has that is clearly not in line with my employer. My wife has absolutely no affiliation in any way to my company/employer. Apparently, I had said something in a random chat to some colleagues that somehow reached my employer. Wouldn't this fall under one of the seven protected characteristics?

The comment about "not being a good team player" related to some activities that my employer wanted me to do outside of working hours.

My main point is, that they said my job performance was good, and to me, a proper and good appraisal should only encompass that, not on the the two items I wrote about above.

The only difference between "passing my probation" and having it extended is the amount of notice that myself or the employer has to give each other.

Your wife's political views are not a protected characteristic for herself in her own employment, let alone in terms of your job role. Personally I would be politely raising that my wife is not employed by them and her views have no bearing on my ability to do my job. 

. 

That is not necessarily entirely true. "Belief" may be a protected characteristic, and there is very definitely a grey area in law between what people believe and politics - and that is getting greyer by the year. And right this moment in time demonstrates that very clearly (and not for the first time) - there are people (in my opinion quite rightly, but is irrelevant) being suspended (and, personally speaking, I sincerely hope being eventually dismissed) for views that they are expressing on line, but I am very much aware that there is case law from almost identical circumstances which found such dismissals to be unfair. If there were someone with certain views that could be considered "contentious" shall we say, and that person was not only very identifiable, but their immediate relatives were also very identifiable, there may be questions about disrepute. Equally, those views may, as beliefs, be protected. Belief is now a minefield. But the bottom line is that that minefield will be a very, very long time coming to a tribunal, if ever, and that doesn't help the here and now at all. 

OP - you aren't really helping anyone give you remotely accurate advice whilst being coy about the facts. Your opinion about what a "proper and good appraisal" should encompass is irrelevant. You have next to no employment protection, and even if that were not the case, it would still be irrelevant. The law is all that matters, and the fact is that there are very certainly circumstances where the context you describe might be of serious concern to an employer regardless of length of service. 

You asked for advice, and if you want that advice to be in any way decent, you need to help people understand the context. Just because most decent managers won't dismiss without good cause and after attempting to fix the situation doesn't mean that some managers won't dismiss just because they can - nor does it mean that your employer does not have serious grounds for concern. 

Undervalued

LinLui said:

elsien said:

shadowfortress said:

LinLui said:

Jemma01 said:

..... Most of us would absolutely dismiss an employee that's not working well with people. 

Actually, "most of us" managers:

• Would not wait five and ahalf months to mention something that impacted on job performance
• Would identify issues, explain and quantify, and set out expectations 
• Would want to see improvements to enable an employee to be successful
• Wouldn't leap to conlcusions based on no evidence - the fact that the OP didn't deny it does not mean that they know it is true nor that they think it insignificant; especially since the OP has made it clear that the comment was made out of the blue, unsupported by any evidence, and "random", which actually suggests that they don't understand where this comment has come from.
• And absolutely wouldn't dismiss someone unless there was no other choice.

Just because someone doesn't have employment protections shouldn't mean that managers should dismiss with impunity - that is bad management.

You have just made up a random bunch of "facts" that are nowhere mentioned in the OP and laid into them for being "unprofessional". "Most of us" managers would try to elicit some facts before coming to conclusions. 

Thank you for the professional and courteous reply.

The comment about my spouse has to do with a political belief that my wife has that is clearly not in line with my employer. My wife has absolutely no affiliation in any way to my company/employer. Apparently, I had said something in a random chat to some colleagues that somehow reached my employer. Wouldn't this fall under one of the seven protected characteristics?

The comment about "not being a good team player" related to some activities that my employer wanted me to do outside of working hours.

My main point is, that they said my job performance was good, and to me, a proper and good appraisal should only encompass that, not on the the two items I wrote about above.

The only difference between "passing my probation" and having it extended is the amount of notice that myself or the employer has to give each other.

Your wife's political views are not a protected characteristic for herself in her own employment, let alone in terms of your job role. Personally I would be politely raising that my wife is not employed by them and her views have no bearing on my ability to do my job. 

. 

That is not necessarily entirely true. "Belief" may be a protected characteristic, and there is very definitely a grey area in law between what people believe and politics - and that is getting greyer by the year. And right this moment in time demonstrates that very clearly (and not for the first time) - there are people (in my opinion quite rightly, but is irrelevant) being suspended (and, personally speaking, I sincerely hope being eventually dismissed) for views that they are expressing on line, but I am very much aware that there is case law from almost identical circumstances which found such dismissals to be unfair. If there were someone with certain views that could be considered "contentious" shall we say, and that person was not only very identifiable, but their immediate relatives were also very identifiable, there may be questions about disrepute. Equally, those views may, as beliefs, be protected. Belief is now a minefield. But the bottom line is that that minefield will be a very, very long time coming to a tribunal, if ever, and that doesn't help the here and now at all. 

OP - you aren't really helping anyone give you remotely accurate advice whilst being coy about the facts. Your opinion about what a "proper and good appraisal" should encompass is irrelevant. You have next to no employment protection, and even if that were not the case, it would still be irrelevant. The law is all that matters, and the fact is that there are very certainly circumstances where the context you describe might be of serious concern to an employer regardless of length of service. 

You asked for advice, and if you want that advice to be in any way decent, you need to help people understand the context. Just because most decent managers won't dismiss without good cause and after attempting to fix the situation doesn't mean that some managers won't dismiss just because they can - nor does it mean that your employer does not have serious grounds for concern. 

Which is exactly the point I was making in response to your earlier post.

Although I largely agree with your first paragraph in this post, keep in mind that the OP has only 5 months service so could be dismissed, perfectly lawfully, for no reason at all. Were this to happen, there is no practical way to force the employer to state a reason and any lawyer would advise them not to. So the OP would have an uphill battle to show that their spouse's belief was the real reason and, even if they did, that it amounted to unlawful dismissal let alone warranted any significant compensation.

So, far better would be to try and impress the employer and progress in the job or look for another one!

Marcon

shadowfortress said:

So, at about the five and a half month mark, my employer randomly pulled me into their office for my six month review. My line manager said I was doing a good job and then my employer also said "I was doing well at my job" but felt that "I was not being a good team player" and then said something about my partner which floored me. They then said because of this my probational period was being extended

I was shocked. My employer is rarely around and my line manager has repeatedly told me I am doing a good job. It's evident that my employer didn't bother to discuss this with my line manager. The whole meeting was random and what my employer said seemed a little random as well. No metrics or quantifiable data was used in coming to their conclusion.

The whole thing was unprofessional and made me angry as there was no rationale whatsoever for bringing my partner into the discussion. Any advice?

There's a lot of hot air and personal views being expressed, as usual (often in place of hard knowledge!). Surely the only sensible step is to talk to your employer and get some clear guidance on exactly what the issues are which have led them to believe you are not 'a team player', and what you can do change that perception. Everything else is pretty irrelevant at this stage.