Letting someone go within the 1st month
Discussion
Interested to know what the situation is with regards to this.
We have a new starter in the office. Less than a month in and its clear its not going to work out. Less than great attitude to work. Generally unenthusiastic. Constant texting, phone use. Shoddy work. No attention span. Repeatedly throughout the day using their own laptop during working hours to do online shopping, and what I assume is sideline freelancing. They also haven't done a full wee yet, numerous appointments for various things & sick days including reasons to come in late or leave early.
This employee isn't my direct report, so I haven't got involved up until now. Speaking to the hiring manager we cant just let the employee go without notice (employment contract says we can) within a month.
I don't have a horse in the race, just interested to know whether we can terminate without reason within 1 month, or whether we need to go through a review process and give them the opportunity to up their game?
Can anyone clarify what route we need to take?
Thanks
We have a new starter in the office. Less than a month in and its clear its not going to work out. Less than great attitude to work. Generally unenthusiastic. Constant texting, phone use. Shoddy work. No attention span. Repeatedly throughout the day using their own laptop during working hours to do online shopping, and what I assume is sideline freelancing. They also haven't done a full wee yet, numerous appointments for various things & sick days including reasons to come in late or leave early.
This employee isn't my direct report, so I haven't got involved up until now. Speaking to the hiring manager we cant just let the employee go without notice (employment contract says we can) within a month.
I don't have a horse in the race, just interested to know whether we can terminate without reason within 1 month, or whether we need to go through a review process and give them the opportunity to up their game?
Can anyone clarify what route we need to take?
Thanks
Thanks for the responses.
Employment contract states that within the first month they can be let go without any reason. After 1 month and less than 2 years then it’s 1 week notice.
I know the hiring manager is a nice guy, and cautious hence the reluctance to pull the pin. I suspect he is worried about it going nuclear and ending with legal action.
Hr isn’t my field, but it’s also not the hiring managers so wanted to check the company wouldn’t be exposed if the new hire was told to leave and not come back.
Looks like we are within our rights.
Employment contract states that within the first month they can be let go without any reason. After 1 month and less than 2 years then it’s 1 week notice.
I know the hiring manager is a nice guy, and cautious hence the reluctance to pull the pin. I suspect he is worried about it going nuclear and ending with legal action.
Hr isn’t my field, but it’s also not the hiring managers so wanted to check the company wouldn’t be exposed if the new hire was told to leave and not come back.
Looks like we are within our rights.
Over the years we've biffed out numerous duffers.
Only once did we catch a cold that cost (our insurance company) £5k. Sacked woman after just five days. In that that time she was late twice & didn't turn in once.
She successfully claimed that the staff were anti-gay and she was discriminated against. Had we done better due diligence we would have discovered that we were the fourth employer to be thus conned by this individual.
Only once did we catch a cold that cost (our insurance company) £5k. Sacked woman after just five days. In that that time she was late twice & didn't turn in once.
She successfully claimed that the staff were anti-gay and she was discriminated against. Had we done better due diligence we would have discovered that we were the fourth employer to be thus conned by this individual.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Over the years we've biffed out numerous duffers.
Only once did we catch a cold that cost (our insurance company) £5k. Sacked woman after just five days. In that that time she was late twice & didn't turn in once.
She successfully claimed that the staff were anti-gay and she was discriminated against. Had we done better due diligence we would have discovered that we were the fourth employer to be thus conned by this individual.
Surely this is easily avoided by following whatever disciplinary procedures the company has before just letting someone go... along the lines of:Only once did we catch a cold that cost (our insurance company) £5k. Sacked woman after just five days. In that that time she was late twice & didn't turn in once.
She successfully claimed that the staff were anti-gay and she was discriminated against. Had we done better due diligence we would have discovered that we were the fourth employer to be thus conned by this individual.
manager verbally mentions the phone and personal laptop use is not acceptable, queries the poor attendance and highlights the amount of instances of absence over a short period of time. Followed up by an email explaining the problems and expectations.
Official written warning for repeat.
Dismissal.
If it’s a genuinely useless employee it won’t take long to get them out the door this way, but you may also discover a genuine reason for the problems that isn’t obvious.... a common one is peers ignoring the FNG and without a proper induction the fng doesn’t know what they should be doing and has given up asking.
Black_S3 said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Over the years we've biffed out numerous duffers.
Only once did we catch a cold that cost (our insurance company) £5k. Sacked woman after just five days. In that that time she was late twice & didn't turn in once.
She successfully claimed that the staff were anti-gay and she was discriminated against. Had we done better due diligence we would have discovered that we were the fourth employer to be thus conned by this individual.
Surely this is easily avoided by following whatever disciplinary procedures the company has before just letting someone go... along the lines of:Only once did we catch a cold that cost (our insurance company) £5k. Sacked woman after just five days. In that that time she was late twice & didn't turn in once.
She successfully claimed that the staff were anti-gay and she was discriminated against. Had we done better due diligence we would have discovered that we were the fourth employer to be thus conned by this individual.
manager verbally mentions the phone and personal laptop use is not acceptable, queries the poor attendance and highlights the amount of instances of absence over a short period of time. Followed up by an email explaining the problems and expectations.
Official written warning for repeat.
Dismissal.
If it’s a genuinely useless employee it won’t take long to get them out the door this way, but you may also discover a genuine reason for the problems that isn’t obvious.... a common one is peers ignoring the FNG and without a proper induction the fng doesn’t know what they should be doing and has given up asking.
..but, the law of averages was working against us too, we'd had a good run
Black_S3 said:
Surely this is easily avoided by following whatever disciplinary procedures the company has before just letting someone go... along the lines of:
manager verbally mentions the phone and personal laptop use is not acceptable, queries the poor attendance and highlights the amount of instances of absence over a short period of time. Followed up by an email explaining the problems and expectations.
Official written warning for repeat.
Dismissal.
This ^manager verbally mentions the phone and personal laptop use is not acceptable, queries the poor attendance and highlights the amount of instances of absence over a short period of time. Followed up by an email explaining the problems and expectations.
Official written warning for repeat.
Dismissal.
Keep it simple.
But if s/he is under the age of the 25, 'they all do that, sir" so get used to it
.Why get embroiled in an unnecessary disciplinary process that could create more mistakes on your side and give them implied rights that they wouldn’t otherwise have?
Disciplinary or not, the moment someone screams discrimination then you’re on a sticky wicket no matter how robust your process was.
Disciplinary or not, the moment someone screams discrimination then you’re on a sticky wicket no matter how robust your process was.
Frustratingly, despite the issues being discussed behind closed doors nothing has been said to the new hire, so they have carried on regardless.
The issues are going to be raised, but suspect it’s only going to mean we are going to get the bare minimum out of the employee and essentially some dead wood.
The issues are going to be raised, but suspect it’s only going to mean we are going to get the bare minimum out of the employee and essentially some dead wood.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Part of the problem was the insurance company didn't have the stomach for a fight. But, we did most of the above but discrimination trumps all.
..but, the law of averages was working against us too, we'd had a good run
I guess that’s the other answer to the puzzle... insure against it & it’s no longer your problem if the insurance company decide they’ll get it sorted cheaper by just paying 5k. As a very small company I’d never consider giving away 5k to a dosser...but, the law of averages was working against us too, we'd had a good run
Lindun said:
Why get embroiled in an unnecessary disciplinary process that could create more mistakes on your side and give them implied rights that they wouldn’t otherwise have?
Disciplinary or not, the moment someone screams discrimination then you’re on a sticky wicket no matter how robust your process was.
I don’t get how this is the case for a new hire as they’ve just been employed which clearly shows no discrimination from the hiring manager or company.... Even LGBs who weren’t spotted at interview are unlikely to turn up and tell a bunch of colleagues about their sexual preferences in their first week and tbh it’s not acceptable workplace behaviour to do so anyway... So all cards were effectively on the table when the job was given & all that has changed is the employee has turned out to be useless.Disciplinary or not, the moment someone screams discrimination then you’re on a sticky wicket no matter how robust your process was.
Black_S3 said:
I don’t get how this is the case for a new hire as they’ve just been employed which clearly shows no discrimination from the hiring manager or company.... Even LGBs who weren’t spotted at interview are unlikely to turn up and tell a bunch of colleagues about their sexual preferences in their first week and tbh it’s not acceptable workplace behaviour to do so anyway... So all cards were effectively on the table when the job was given & all that has changed is the employee has turned out to be useless.
It just gets trickier. There are lots more what’s to discriminate You seem to be missing my key point though. Don’t bother doing a disciplinary. They have no right to one, so why add more complication? Not everyone will be screaming discrimination so don’t give them extra unnecessary rights.
The bigger the company, the more they crap themselves around discrimination. There really is little
Reason to, but most do.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff