employee not coming back form holiday.
Discussion
JustinP1 said:
The Walrus said:
stevieb said:
Podie said:
Written warning, and give him unpaid leave for the extra week.
I would agree with 3 weeks paid leave and unpaid for a week, but he gave 4 months notice he wanted 4 weeks off on leave for his holiday. I would not have refused this as you had 4 months to train someone else to do elements of his job so to keep everything ticking over until his return. Personally if i had a request such as this refused you would get my resignation and i will work elsewhere for a competitor!
Edited by The Walrus on Tuesday 31st July 17:43
Perhaps the OP didnt want to spend his time or other employees time and increase their workload to train someone else just to pander to one guys whims!?
JustinP1 said:
Luckily for me, I have learnt my employers lessons reasonably early. I am constantly astonished how an employee can think an employment contract is one sided - like if they dont like something in the contract they signed then down the line it is assumed that allowances can always be made regardless to the cost to the company or other employees... Yet, if the *employer* should need flexibility or demands it to remain in business, then this is met with feelings of complete unfairness, distate and threats of action!
Sorry to say but you want the employee to flexible to meet the comapnies needs but you are not will to return this by extending his leave to 4 weeks so he takes all his entitlement at once. JustinP1 said:
I counter this by making my contracts watertight - not in the sense a £200 an hour lawyer has written them, but they are in plain english what is expected, why, and exactly what the consequence is. For example, should an employee be not in work for illness then they must personally call me before 10am to explain their absence. Failure to do this means they are AWOL and the cost of getting a temp to cover their post at agency rates is deducted from that months pay.
Dont matter whats included in the contract if it goes to tribunal and is proved not to be a fair and reasonable contract it is not enforceable.. Been there done that got the T-shirt. JustinP1 said:
This is not about the OP being reasonable it is about an arrogant **** who is trying to pull a fast one and demand whatever he wants. Should he pander to him and back down now? Should he heck!
Being flexible will help with staff retention and staff attitude to the company. I must also be an arrogate **** as i have demanded a lot from my current employer due to the dependecy they place on me.
I am still maintaing that the company needs to be more flexible! and it is partially down to the fault of the management.
Edited by stevieb on Wednesday 1st August 10:03
stevieb said:
JustinP1 said:
The Walrus said:
stevieb said:
Podie said:
Written warning, and give him unpaid leave for the extra week.
I would agree with 3 weeks paid leave and unpaid for a week, but he gave 4 months notice he wanted 4 weeks off on leave for his holiday. I would not have refused this as you had 4 months to train someone else to do elements of his job so to keep everything ticking over until his return. Personally if i had a request such as this refused you would get my resignation and i will work elsewhere for a competitor!
Edited by The Walrus on Tuesday 31st July 17:43
Perhaps the OP didnt want to spend his time or other employees time and increase their workload to train someone else just to pander to one guys whims!?
JustinP1 said:
Luckily for me, I have learnt my employers lessons reasonably early. I am constantly astonished how an employee can think an employment contract is one sided - like if they dont like something in the contract they signed then down the line it is assumed that allowances can always be made regardless to the cost to the company or other employees... Yet, if the *employer* should need flexibility or demands it to remain in business, then this is met with feelings of complete unfairness, distate and threats of action!
Sorry to say but you want the employee to flexible to meet the comapnies needs but you are not will to return this by extending his leave to 4 weeks so he takes all his entitlement at once. JustinP1 said:
I counter this by making my contracts watertight - not in the sense a £200 an hour lawyer has written them, but they are in plain english what is expected, why, and exactly what the consequence is. For example, should an employee be not in work for illness then they must personally call me before 10am to explain their absence. Failure to do this means they are AWOL and the cost of getting a temp to cover their post at agency rates is deducted from that months pay.
Dont matter whats included in the contract if it goes to tribunal and is proved not to be a fair and reasonable contract it is not enforceable.. Been there done that got the T-shirt. JustinP1 said:
This is not about the OP being reasonable it is about an arrogant **** who is trying to pull a fast one and demand whatever he wants. Should he pander to him and back down now? Should he heck!
Being flexible will help with staff retention and staff attitude to the company. I must also be an arrogate **** as i have demanded a lot from my current employer due to the dependecy they place on me.
I am still maintaing that the company needs to be more flexible! and it is partially down to the fault of the management.
Edited by stevieb on Wednesday 1st August 10:03
People going ill, vs people no turning up for work because they have something better to do are different things.
You mention adequate redundacy in the team. Adequate redundancy means to me that you are running with too many people. If others can take up one person's work without any sort of damage (short or long term) then that person's role is redundant, surely?
Your management are highly dependant on you. consequently you make increased demands on them - do you have a weak management team then? That's fine, you have key skills and your employer is willing to pay you (or accept terms in your contract) for them.
The company has been flexible, holidays are set at 2 weeks max (10 working days) and have to be agreed with the management. Standard clauses.
We agreed in a meeting that he could extend to 15 working days - because of issues with flights, he came back and asked for a further extension, and we agreed that we could go to 17 days. Now he's out there surrounded by Sheila's, beer in hand and sun on his back he wants 24. So the best part of 5 working weeks.
I have been flexible. He is being unreasonable. There is also an assumption that the employees has been flexible to meet the business needs? Has he? when, how and why have increased demands been placed on him outside the terms of his contract that he has had to help us out? There have been none.
stevieb - I appreciate your comments and of course - the easy path would be to cave in to employee demands - for what is percieved to be an easy life. But have you ever managed staff or owned a business?
this is why i will never work in an office or for someone else ever again for as long as I live.
How long has this dude been working for you? He asked for 4 weeks, would it have been so hard to say, i can give you three, but 1 week extra will be coming out of your pay. I bet he would of been back within the 3 weeks if he wasn't getting paid for it and knew it.
Not knowing you or the circumstances but it does have the air of resentment about it, with him jollying it up on our fair shores. (saying that, want me to drag him to the airport for you?)
How long has this dude been working for you? He asked for 4 weeks, would it have been so hard to say, i can give you three, but 1 week extra will be coming out of your pay. I bet he would of been back within the 3 weeks if he wasn't getting paid for it and knew it.
Not knowing you or the circumstances but it does have the air of resentment about it, with him jollying it up on our fair shores. (saying that, want me to drag him to the airport for you?)
southendpier said:
stevieb - I appreciate your comments and of course - the easy path would be to cave in to employee demands - for what is percieved to be an easy life. But have you ever managed staff or owned a business?
I admit it would be an easy path to cave in, but on balance this would work in your favour. but this instance i believe this is working against you as you will now have to be seen to be doing something so that the other staff can see that there are repicusions for such behaivour and ignorance to your requests. As you now have all eyes watching you about how you deal with this, if you deal with it to leniently then others will take the piss, if you deal with it to hard you could loose the employee. I dont know what industry you work in so can not judge, but all the team i work in get 30 days holiday per year (not including public holidays) we can take upto 4 weeks off at a time so long as we give 3 month notice. anything upto a week off is down to the indivisual circumstance so i can turn upto work tomorrow and take the next 5 days off.
southendpier said:
You mention adequate redundacy in the team. Adequate redundancy means to me that you are running with too many people. If others can take up one person's work without any sort of damage (short or long term) then that person's role is redundant, surely?
No Adequate reduncy within the team is where i have a number of staff who can step into the breach if needed and do the critical elements of the work for the absent employee. This would mean that they drop other not critical elements of there job in the short term. But this is not sustainable over a long period of time. But will give enough time to advertise for a temp to come in and sort out the less critical elements of the job. southendpier said:
Your management are highly dependant on you. consequently you make increased demands on them - do you have a weak management team then? That's fine, you have key skills and your employer is willing to pay you (or accept terms in your contract) for them.
Yep they are, as i am in a technical role and no one else is able to do the job, but i am also managing a team of 8 people as someone has just left. So increasing pressure has been placed on me to mentor the younger inexperience members of the team. but i am still required to do my contracted job. so i have requested different terms conditions + pay in returnSteve
stevieb said:
southendpier said:
stevieb - I appreciate your comments and of course - the easy path would be to cave in to employee demands - for what is percieved to be an easy life. But have you ever managed staff or owned a business?
I admit it would be an easy path to cave in, but on balance this would work in your favour. but this instance i believe this is working against you as you will now have to be seen to be doing something so that the other staff can see that there are repicusions for such behaivour and ignorance to your requests. As you now have all eyes watching you about how you deal with this, if you deal with it to leniently then others will take the piss, if you deal with it to hard you could loose the employee. I dont know what industry you work in so can not judge, but all the team i work in get 30 days holiday per year (not including public holidays) we can take upto 4 weeks off at a time so long as we give 3 month notice. anything upto a week off is down to the indivisual circumstance so i can turn upto work tomorrow and take the next 5 days off.
JustinP1 said:
In fact, the situation is opening up another employment law issue. What happens when one, two or more people start demanding extra leave too? If you let this guy get away with it the others may have a legal case for contructive dismissal for you not offering them the same!
I think you are blatently being pi**ed on here. Unless you really really need him, I would get rid now as its only a matter of time until the next issue if he treats you like a mug.
They would seem to be the real issues to me - we had very generous holiday provision in my last company, but people (especially the sales desk and admin girls) took the piss - they were forever ringing up to say they'd been delayed a couple of days, had been taken ill etc. It was routine for them to say they were going for a weeks holiday, book a week off and then call and say they hadn't realised the flight didn't land until the middle of the night so they wouldn't be in the next day.I think you are blatently being pi**ed on here. Unless you really really need him, I would get rid now as its only a matter of time until the next issue if he treats you like a mug.
We also had a huge problem when we kept on a salesman who got done for drunken driving - of course it then became impossible to fire anyone else for that offence, and it happened several times.
arfur said:
Ask him when he is flying back in to the UK
Inform the authorities about possible drug mule
Sit back and enjoy
Oh hell yes! Do that.Inform the authorities about possible drug mule
Sit back and enjoy
And when he comes back to work... make sure all the staff have 1 rubber glove on each and start EE-AWWW-ing at him
Then sack him.
And ride his wife.
Then kill his parents.
And make him eat them.
Did I go too far?
stevieb said:
JustinP1 said:
The Walrus said:
stevieb said:
Podie said:
Written warning, and give him unpaid leave for the extra week.
I would agree with 3 weeks paid leave and unpaid for a week, but he gave 4 months notice he wanted 4 weeks off on leave for his holiday. I would not have refused this as you had 4 months to train someone else to do elements of his job so to keep everything ticking over until his return. Personally if i had a request such as this refused you would get my resignation and i will work elsewhere for a competitor!
Edited by The Walrus on Tuesday 31st July 17:43
Perhaps the OP didnt want to spend his time or other employees time and increase their workload to train someone else just to pander to one guys whims!?
JustinP1 said:
Luckily for me, I have learnt my employers lessons reasonably early. I am constantly astonished how an employee can think an employment contract is one sided - like if they dont like something in the contract they signed then down the line it is assumed that allowances can always be made regardless to the cost to the company or other employees... Yet, if the *employer* should need flexibility or demands it to remain in business, then this is met with feelings of complete unfairness, distate and threats of action!
Sorry to say but you want the employee to flexible to meet the comapnies needs but you are not will to return this by extending his leave to 4 weeks so he takes all his entitlement at once. JustinP1 said:
I counter this by making my contracts watertight - not in the sense a £200 an hour lawyer has written them, but they are in plain english what is expected, why, and exactly what the consequence is. For example, should an employee be not in work for illness then they must personally call me before 10am to explain their absence. Failure to do this means they are AWOL and the cost of getting a temp to cover their post at agency rates is deducted from that months pay.
Dont matter whats included in the contract if it goes to tribunal and is proved not to be a fair and reasonable contract it is not enforceable.. Been there done that got the T-shirt. JustinP1 said:
This is not about the OP being reasonable it is about an arrogant **** who is trying to pull a fast one and demand whatever he wants. Should he pander to him and back down now? Should he heck!
Being flexible will help with staff retention and staff attitude to the company. I must also be an arrogate **** as i have demanded a lot from my current employer due to the dependecy they place on me.
I am still maintaing that the company needs to be more flexible! and it is partially down to the fault of the management.
Edited by stevieb on Wednesday 1st August 10:03
I think you will find that a lot of small companies do not and cannot financially have adequate redundancy through either skills or workload to cover a one month at any time of the year the employee sees fit...
- That is why employment contracts stipulate the amount of holiday and that prior arrangement of holiday must be agreed.*
I agree with what you say though, this goes both ways - if your employer needs that bit extra from you and you can give it, then this will be reciprocated in perks later on. I am pretty sure that all of the contracts I have written have perfectly enforcable clauses in them, they are all in plain english, explain the need for them, explain what is required and importantly explain the consequence before the issue arises - so there can be no complaining of unfairness later.
However, in this situation the guy has stepped over the line big time. If after his 'muscle flexing' stand-off he doesnt back down then he either doesnt give a damn about his job or employer, or doesnt think the consequences are going to happen.
Either way, letting him get away with it now is basically saying to him and everyone else that this is OK or there wont be consequences, or even worse than that the feeling of unfairness through other staff and the potential problems later will be a lot worse than the chances of a guy having a sucessful tribunal over this - something which I think are very very slim.
A few here have said that the employee gave plenty ie 4 months notice of his request/intention.
Fair enough, that is a good length of time but would the same argument apply if he had actually given 6 months notice and wanted 2 months off for example?
You can apply the same sort of reasoning as per the rules regarding flexible working. There are several valid reasons why one might turn down a request.
I agree with the point above that small employers often do not have the capability to cover leave of this nature. If you have that much spare capacity amongst a small workforce then quite possibly they are not working hard enough in the first place.
The reasoning for declining a request draws many paralells with many small employer's concerns about the increasing raft of 'family friendly' employment provisions.
Fair enough, that is a good length of time but would the same argument apply if he had actually given 6 months notice and wanted 2 months off for example?
You can apply the same sort of reasoning as per the rules regarding flexible working. There are several valid reasons why one might turn down a request.
I agree with the point above that small employers often do not have the capability to cover leave of this nature. If you have that much spare capacity amongst a small workforce then quite possibly they are not working hard enough in the first place.
The reasoning for declining a request draws many paralells with many small employer's concerns about the increasing raft of 'family friendly' employment provisions.
JustinP1 said:
stevieb said:
JustinP1 said:
The Walrus said:
stevieb said:
Podie said:
Written warning, and give him unpaid leave for the extra week.
I would agree with 3 weeks paid leave and unpaid for a week, but he gave 4 months notice he wanted 4 weeks off on leave for his holiday. I would not have refused this as you had 4 months to train someone else to do elements of his job so to keep everything ticking over until his return. Personally if i had a request such as this refused you would get my resignation and i will work elsewhere for a competitor!
Edited by The Walrus on Tuesday 31st July 17:43
Perhaps the OP didnt want to spend his time or other employees time and increase their workload to train someone else just to pander to one guys whims!?
JustinP1 said:
Luckily for me, I have learnt my employers lessons reasonably early. I am constantly astonished how an employee can think an employment contract is one sided - like if they dont like something in the contract they signed then down the line it is assumed that allowances can always be made regardless to the cost to the company or other employees... Yet, if the *employer* should need flexibility or demands it to remain in business, then this is met with feelings of complete unfairness, distate and threats of action!
Sorry to say but you want the employee to flexible to meet the comapnies needs but you are not will to return this by extending his leave to 4 weeks so he takes all his entitlement at once. JustinP1 said:
I counter this by making my contracts watertight - not in the sense a £200 an hour lawyer has written them, but they are in plain english what is expected, why, and exactly what the consequence is. For example, should an employee be not in work for illness then they must personally call me before 10am to explain their absence. Failure to do this means they are AWOL and the cost of getting a temp to cover their post at agency rates is deducted from that months pay.
Dont matter whats included in the contract if it goes to tribunal and is proved not to be a fair and reasonable contract it is not enforceable.. Been there done that got the T-shirt. JustinP1 said:
This is not about the OP being reasonable it is about an arrogant **** who is trying to pull a fast one and demand whatever he wants. Should he pander to him and back down now? Should he heck!
Being flexible will help with staff retention and staff attitude to the company. I must also be an arrogate **** as i have demanded a lot from my current employer due to the dependecy they place on me.
I am still maintaing that the company needs to be more flexible! and it is partially down to the fault of the management.
Edited by stevieb on Wednesday 1st August 10:03
I think you will find that a lot of small companies do not and cannot financially have adequate redundancy through either skills or workload to cover a one month at any time of the year the employee sees fit...
- That is why employment contracts stipulate the amount of holiday and that prior arrangement of holiday must be agreed.*
I agree with what you say though, this goes both ways - if your employer needs that bit extra from you and you can give it, then this will be reciprocated in perks later on. I am pretty sure that all of the contracts I have written have perfectly enforcable clauses in them, they are all in plain english, explain the need for them, explain what is required and importantly explain the consequence before the issue arises - so there can be no complaining of unfairness later.
However, in this situation the guy has stepped over the line big time. If after his 'muscle flexing' stand-off he doesnt back down then he either doesnt give a damn about his job or employer, or doesnt think the consequences are going to happen.
Either way, letting him get away with it now is basically saying to him and everyone else that this is OK or there wont be consequences, or even worse than that the feeling of unfairness through other staff and the potential problems later will be a lot worse than the chances of a guy having a sucessful tribunal over this - something which I think are very very slim.
You have been more than reasonable in granting the employee extra time over and above the normal two week allocation that your company gives.
He is taking the piss and deserves some sort of punishment to show him and your other employees that this cannot be tolerated.
Finally, just a thought, its a small world and if it all went to tribunal say, and someone spotted this thread - the fact you posted about it on an open forum may not help your case !
Noger said:
[
It all depends on how much evidence either way you have. If they turn up with not much of an excuse and try to bluff it, then I tend to agree that things will go the employer's way.
But a sniff of a doctor's note or prior medical condition, and a well prepared employee with a rehearsed sob story ...
Very pleased to be able to say that we simply do not have that in my business. I think that we average about one day a year off sick.It all depends on how much evidence either way you have. If they turn up with not much of an excuse and try to bluff it, then I tend to agree that things will go the employer's way.
But a sniff of a doctor's note or prior medical condition, and a well prepared employee with a rehearsed sob story ...
Seems that performance related pay brings out a bit of a sense of responsibility if done well...
NorthernBoy said:
Noger said:
[
It all depends on how much evidence either way you have. If they turn up with not much of an excuse and try to bluff it, then I tend to agree that things will go the employer's way.
But a sniff of a doctor's note or prior medical condition, and a well prepared employee with a rehearsed sob story ...
Very pleased to be able to say that we simply do not have that in my business. I think that we average about one day a year off sick.It all depends on how much evidence either way you have. If they turn up with not much of an excuse and try to bluff it, then I tend to agree that things will go the employer's way.
But a sniff of a doctor's note or prior medical condition, and a well prepared employee with a rehearsed sob story ...
Seems that performance related pay brings out a bit of a sense of responsibility if done well...
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff