Managed Out The Door?
Discussion
I've known my position with my current (or rather previous employer) was looking somewhat bleak http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... We had lost a major contract and that particular contract was where I was doing to all my work and was best suited to my skills, experience and qualifications. I was getting chopped and was pretty much resigned to the inevitability of it.
What shocked me, however, was the way they did it. I was expecting the usual redundancy process: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/work_w/work_wo...
Rather than follow any long drawn out selection process and offers of alternative employment I was given, out of the blue, a day an a half's notice of a disciplinary hearing. My crime was that some weeks back my boss asked me to postpone a week's annual leave by one week to tie up a final account. I did so without properly amending my annual leave request and thus I was not present at work for the period of one week with no annual leave request or notice of sickness submitted. My absence, as such, was unauthorised and was looked on as gross misconduct.
Off the record discussions left me certain that there was no contention of the fact that this period of absence was unauthorised and that the circumstances leading to this were irrelevant. I was for the high jump and not only was I for the chop my professional reputation was on the line too. I asked if I could resign to which my boss replies that "he'd be delighted if we could leave on good terms and was glad that I could now leave with the good reference he'd always wanted to give me".
I had heard the expression "managed out the door" and had always wondered how HR managers got shot of staff they wanted rid of if said staff members weren't trouble and didn't want to leave. Now I see how it's done.
What shocked me, however, was the way they did it. I was expecting the usual redundancy process: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/work_w/work_wo...
Rather than follow any long drawn out selection process and offers of alternative employment I was given, out of the blue, a day an a half's notice of a disciplinary hearing. My crime was that some weeks back my boss asked me to postpone a week's annual leave by one week to tie up a final account. I did so without properly amending my annual leave request and thus I was not present at work for the period of one week with no annual leave request or notice of sickness submitted. My absence, as such, was unauthorised and was looked on as gross misconduct.
Off the record discussions left me certain that there was no contention of the fact that this period of absence was unauthorised and that the circumstances leading to this were irrelevant. I was for the high jump and not only was I for the chop my professional reputation was on the line too. I asked if I could resign to which my boss replies that "he'd be delighted if we could leave on good terms and was glad that I could now leave with the good reference he'd always wanted to give me".
I had heard the expression "managed out the door" and had always wondered how HR managers got shot of staff they wanted rid of if said staff members weren't trouble and didn't want to leave. Now I see how it's done.
desolate said:
I would be going to see a decent employment solicitor if you haven't already got another job.
Given the apparent unreasonable behaviour of the employer I would certainly recommend considering litigation. Such actions by an employer ought to result in adequate recompense to the aggrieved employee. I hope all goes well and you find another job. All too common and I would persue it personally. Mind you I gave up employment and became self employed many years ago because that way I knew how strong the business was and whether trouble was coming. Never regretted that decision in the next forty years in business. Best of uck to you.Something similar happened to my OH. Given three different managers all pulling her in different directions, set up to fail, disciplined for no reason whatsoever, relentlessly bullied and finally had her side of the story ignored by HR (even though she head reams of written evidence to how she'd been treated) when push came to shove. Basically they were planning on creating a senior management role and she was infinitely better qualified for it than the person that they actually wanted in it, so they had to get rid of her first to avoid any comeback. Fortunately she's in a far better place now. Good luck!
Yup - time to go legal.
Getting you to walk out of the door is just a question now of how much it is going to cost them. Don't forget to factor in the damage to your professional reputation in to the calculation.
As for "good reference": it is worth f
k all. Most big companies now only confirm the dates you were working there as they don't want to be sued for non-performance further down the line.
Good luck - this is going to take quite a lot of personal resilience to see through.
Getting you to walk out of the door is just a question now of how much it is going to cost them. Don't forget to factor in the damage to your professional reputation in to the calculation.
As for "good reference": it is worth f
k all. Most big companies now only confirm the dates you were working there as they don't want to be sued for non-performance further down the line.Good luck - this is going to take quite a lot of personal resilience to see through.
I hate this sort of bks - if they want to make someone redundant due to loss of contract - any reasonable person could understand that if it were done proper and fair.
Why OPs management feel a want or desire to indulge in this nonsense I really have no idea.
People talk (rightly) about the need to keep on good terms with employers when leaving - because you never know when you might end up wanting to/needing to apply for work there in the future.
But does the same not apply in the other direction - who knows - the employer may have liked to re employ the OP if they have done good work - if things pick up again.
That option is possibly now gone - and if OP has friends working in the same line of work - they may not go looking for work there either.
And all down to unnecessary nonsense
Frustrating, annoying - and all very unnecessary - and if they are doing it to avoid redundancy payments - a false economy (can't comment on the legal aspects of that though - Breadvan 72 is your man for those matters)
ks - if they want to make someone redundant due to loss of contract - any reasonable person could understand that if it were done proper and fair.Why OPs management feel a want or desire to indulge in this nonsense I really have no idea.
People talk (rightly) about the need to keep on good terms with employers when leaving - because you never know when you might end up wanting to/needing to apply for work there in the future.
But does the same not apply in the other direction - who knows - the employer may have liked to re employ the OP if they have done good work - if things pick up again.
That option is possibly now gone - and if OP has friends working in the same line of work - they may not go looking for work there either.
And all down to unnecessary nonsense
Frustrating, annoying - and all very unnecessary - and if they are doing it to avoid redundancy payments - a false economy (can't comment on the legal aspects of that though - Breadvan 72 is your man for those matters)
GlenMH said:
Yup - time to go legal.
Spoke to Citizens Advice. Advised to forget it. After I was verbally asked by my manager to postpone my holiday I should have gone back and amended my holiday request on the intranet site. I didn't. They have me cold. In a tribunal all my employer would have to do is show the policy document stating that annual leave must be booked within set periods depending on the leave duration, applied for on a specific intranet site, the application is forwarded to the regional manager who informs the applicant by email whether or the leave can be taken. He could then show the dates that I had applied for and had been granted leave and the dates (different dates) I was actually off. Morally my employer is way off the mark. Technically and legally speaking I am in the wrong and their arse is covered.
They also told me that tribunals are far less sympathetic to this kind of complaint than they were and that companies can hold the complainant liable for their legal expenses.
Who is a good employment solicitor?
I know someone who was dealt with in a very similar manner. Doing a good job, hitting targets, but then they wanted to re-structure, and then this person was told they were being investigated about expense claims errors, eventually they were done for gross misconduct despite doing the expense claim the same way without being told otherwise for the previous 10 months...
I know someone who was dealt with in a very similar manner. Doing a good job, hitting targets, but then they wanted to re-structure, and then this person was told they were being investigated about expense claims errors, eventually they were done for gross misconduct despite doing the expense claim the same way without being told otherwise for the previous 10 months...
schmunk said:
This may be true, and unfortunate, but it ain't gross misconduct.
N.B. above IMO, IANAL, BV72 IAL (BHNYL)
Even if it does satisfy the gross misconduct test, then dismissal is not necessarily within the band of reasonable responses.N.B. above IMO, IANAL, BV72 IAL (BHNYL)
Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subs.(1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer-
(a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and
(b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
As a recent Lord Justice said
It is now a firmly established principle of unfair dismissal law that when an employment tribunal has to determine whether an employer has acted fairly within the meaning of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it applies what is colloquially known as the "band of reasonable responses" test. In other words, it has to ask whether the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
So I would say a meeting with a decent employment lawyer would be a good idea. BV normally can recommend someone good.
IANAL but...
The reason for the approval of absence is to allow your employers to plan workload.
In this instance they asked you to change yor holiday, ergo it was approved (both the time you didn't take and gave up and the time you actually took.)
The fact that you didn't follow procedure to the letter is not entirely your fault since the employer requested you to change the already approved leave.
I'd suspect any tribunal would have difficulty in supporting an argument that you took unauthorised leave if the employer asked you to move the pre-booked leave.
But then I have seen some District Judges make some unfathomable rulings that weren't worth challenging.
The reason for the approval of absence is to allow your employers to plan workload.
In this instance they asked you to change yor holiday, ergo it was approved (both the time you didn't take and gave up and the time you actually took.)
The fact that you didn't follow procedure to the letter is not entirely your fault since the employer requested you to change the already approved leave.
I'd suspect any tribunal would have difficulty in supporting an argument that you took unauthorised leave if the employer asked you to move the pre-booked leave.
But then I have seen some District Judges make some unfathomable rulings that weren't worth challenging.
Tannedbaldhead said:
GlenMH said:
Yup - time to go legal.
Spoke to Citizens Advice. Advised to forget it. After I was verbally asked by my manager to postpone my holiday I should have gone back and amended my holiday request on the intranet site. I didn't. They have me cold. In a tribunal all my employer would have to do is show the policy document stating that annual leave must be booked within set periods depending on the leave duration, applied for on a specific intranet site, the application is forwarded to the regional manager who informs the applicant by email whether or the leave can be taken. He could then show the dates that I had applied for and had been granted leave and the dates (different dates) I was actually off. Morally my employer is way off the mark. Technically and legally speaking I am in the wrong and their arse is covered.
They also told me that tribunals are far less sympathetic to this kind of complaint than they were and that companies can hold the complainant liable for their legal expenses.
MitchT said:
Something similar happened to my OH. Given three different managers all pulling her in different directions, set up to fail, disciplined for no reason whatsoever, relentlessly bullied and finally had her side of the story ignored by HR (even though she head reams of written evidence to how she'd been treated) when push came to shove. Basically they were planning on creating a senior management role and she was infinitely better qualified for it than the person that they actually wanted in it, so they had to get rid of her first to avoid any comeback. Fortunately she's in a far better place now. Good luck!
bds!!! They had her killed??? 
I'm a manager in the public sector, and have to say I'd never in a million years get away with what the OP's former company did to them.
I genuinely can't imagine any manager in my organisation (of circa 3,000) even thinking about that as a realsitic way of managing someone out, because any victim of it would immediately come back (likely with union support) to go to an employment tribunal. In fact it wouldn't, as our own grievance / complaints process would quite rightly reverse the decision before it got to a judge.
Which leaves me with 2 concluisons:
1) the OP should pursue this, as there's no way it's the right outcome
2) Sometimes I forget how big the gulf is between public / private sectors. This type of action may not be typical, but I just can't get over an employer thinking it would ever stick. Private sector must have either far less fear of employees going legal, or decide the cost/benefit of losing employees like the OP is worth the legal trouble. But the public sector wouldn't even do a cost/benefit of that - its not the right course of action, so it wouldn't be done.
Ian
I genuinely can't imagine any manager in my organisation (of circa 3,000) even thinking about that as a realsitic way of managing someone out, because any victim of it would immediately come back (likely with union support) to go to an employment tribunal. In fact it wouldn't, as our own grievance / complaints process would quite rightly reverse the decision before it got to a judge.
Which leaves me with 2 concluisons:
1) the OP should pursue this, as there's no way it's the right outcome
2) Sometimes I forget how big the gulf is between public / private sectors. This type of action may not be typical, but I just can't get over an employer thinking it would ever stick. Private sector must have either far less fear of employees going legal, or decide the cost/benefit of losing employees like the OP is worth the legal trouble. But the public sector wouldn't even do a cost/benefit of that - its not the right course of action, so it wouldn't be done.
Ian
Breadvan72 said:
A good example of why CAB advice is next to useless. On the facts stated, OP, you have a strong case.
Listen to this guy.I wouldn't be surprised if it only took a strongly worded letter from a solicitor to get you a healthy cash settlement; your old employers sound like a dodgy lot.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff