let go after 3 weeks training

gubby

I would be interested to get an opinion on this. I was working in a full time job which i liked well enough but wanted less hours. so I applied for a job with a big well know company. I was interviewed, got the job, got a contract initially for 12 months. 9 people started training with me. after the first week of training we were told that at the end of the second and final week there would be an assessment and the results would determin if we would keep our jobs. Now, I honestly didnt think I did too badly I scored 77% and 66% and even though there was a lot to learn I felt that I was capeable of handling the job. However, after the final exam another lady and I were told that we didnt score high enough. Good luck and thanks. Now I am rather annoyed because I was not told this possibility at the interview stage. would I have given up my job if I knew the full score? I dont know but I would have had a choice. Now I am unemployed. I cant even put in my cv that I had three weeks training in this system.
Am I wrong to be annoyed? btw the other lady is also very annoyed.:mad:

seamus

That's a pretty ****ty way to run your recruitment process, name and shame.

But there's nothing you can do. Your contract probably says that you had a probation period during which the company can let you go without reason. Which they can (more or less).

Gillo

It's unfortunate but as Seamus said there's not alot you can do. I've heard of a number of companies doing this, but it is in virtually every contract.

I don't recommend lieing on your CV but you could put on your CV or explain in interviews that you left because you realised that the job wasn't for you.

leeroybrown

Many companies have defined probation periods with review procedures, etc but this is the first I've heard of a company who have employed people on a 12 month contract without making it clear there was a chance they could easily be unemployed within a month. If this is their standard practice they'd have to conceal it otherwise they'd get a lot less good staff.

I'm with Seamus on this one. Name and Shame...

Stark

Nearly every contract has the "probation period" clause but it's usually just there for those who are terminally lazy and incompetent or like to keep severed heads of kittens on their desks. For them to routinely lay people off during their probation period is seriously bad form and it's something that should have been made clear to you at interview stage.

Name and shame, name and shame!

Supercell

Definately agree, totally shoddy way to treat someone, everyone has to earn a crust.

Name and shame, i'll definately be marking that company off my list of potential employers in the future!

DOLEMAN

I have a feeling there is more to this story than you are saying. Companies don't just get rid of people. I've worked for companies which had training where you had to get X marks to pass. No one was ever kicked out. Also, the exams after 2/3 weeks training are always simple. I'd like to hear both sides of this story before anyone "names and shames"...

leeroybrown

DOLEMAN wrote:

I have a feeling there is more to this story than you are saying. Companies don't just get rid of people. I've worked for companies which had training where you had to get X marks to pass. No one was ever kicked out. Also, the exams after 2/3 weeks training are always simple. I'd like to hear both sides of this story before anyone "names and shames"...

Assuming the OP is telling their side of the story honestly (and it's not as if they came in raging about Company X...) then the company the employed them didn't treat them particularly well. In this case either the company is hiring and screening in a rather dishonest fashion or the company had a specific reason to get rid of two people and wouldn't tell them why. Either way I'd like to know who did it...

L5

leeroybrown wrote:

Assuming the OP is telling their side of the story honestly (and it's not as if they came in raging about Company X...) then the company the employed them didn't treat them particularly well. In this case either the company is hiring and screening in a rather dishonest fashion or the company had a specific reason to get rid of two people and wouldn't tell them why. Either way I'd like to know who did it...

ill lay money this is with SAP . I have seen them advertise these jobs, they basically say straight out that theyll take on 12 people, and only hold onto 8 or so after a month or two.

seamus

DOLEMAN wrote:

I have a feeling there is more to this story than you are saying. Companies don't just get rid of people. I've worked for companies which had training where you had to get X marks to pass. No one was ever kicked out. Also, the exams after 2/3 weeks training are always simple. I'd like to hear both sides of this story before anyone "names and shames"...

I can't say I've ever had to do "exams" after starting working in a place. If they weren't sure he was able to do the work (and thus required an exam to find out), then why did they bother hiring him? Sounds like an expensive and ill-thought out recruitment process to me.

leeroybrown

L5 wrote:

ill lay money this is with SAP . I have seen them advertise these jobs, they basically say straight out that theyll take on 12 people, and only hold onto 8 or so after a month or two.

If the company said it up front before any contracts were signed and more importantly any other jobs were given up then it wouldn't be an problem.

DOLEMAN

seamus wrote:

Sounds like an expensive and ill-thought out recruitment process to me.

That's why I don't believe the OP. He's not telling us the whole story.

Wishbone Ash

It's perfectly legal. The Unfair dismissals Act only covers those who have been employed for more than 365 days (unless exceptional circumstances which do not apply in this case).

WhiteWashMan

it certainly sounds suspect, but unless you know all the facts, speculation is the best that we can do.

as for the legality, i would doubt if someone has this as a business practice would do it if it were illegal. especially if they were a larger company.
id be interested to find out who it is.

after all, if what we have here is fact, then there is hardly a case of libel....

on the other hand, we dont have all the facts, then it might be an idea not to tell us who youre talking about.

gubby

In case i people feel I am mis representing anyone. I have to say that I am a lady in her 50s I believe that I should have been told at the interview stage about the assessments. I was hired by the ESB for their customer services call center in cork. I believe I would have been a good representive for the company . My customer service skill are very good because I believe in giving Good Services to Customers. The are using the SAP system which is very hard, particulary as I had never seen it before. Both myself and the other lady who was let go (also over 50) felt very hurt and humilated by the way we were treated.

Stark

Out of curiosity, what was the age profile of the successful applicants?

gubby

The age of the other nine ranged from approx 20 to 32 the 32 being already employed by the company and only joined us for training in the networks side of the business. despite our age we felt we had a great deal to offer

Stark

I'm just wondering if there was an age discrimination issue at play. Alarm bells started ringing when I heard you and the other woman who were let go were both in your 50s. Especially in a call centre which is often a stereotypical "young person's job".

The discrimination card isn't one to be played lightly of course, but you should ask to see how you compared with the rest of the group in the assessments. Try and gleam as much information as you can.

redspider

This is unfortunate, but under probationary "rules" an employer can terminate the contract of an employee on a subjective basis, and there is not much you can do about it. That is one of the reasons that Ireland has such a strong economy, as employers prefer this "liberal labour market", as it is called, in favour of less flexible labour markets such as those in Germany, which wouldnt allow such treatment. I realise that is no comfort to the OP.

To the OP.
Question: did you have a contract/agreement in place with your the employer?
If so, was there a notice time period mentioned in the termination clause? (I think the minimal has to be 1 week)
Were you given that notice and was it fully paid and were you paid for the full 3 weeks that you worked (even though training/induction was being given)?


I have not heard of many employers using this tactic underhand. If you look at the situation from their point of view, they should have paid for 3 weeks of your tenure plus 1 weeks notice and in business terms they would have got nothing back for it.

In terms of ageism, this is very hard to prove. Employers have learnt to classify and rate potential employees on other attributes, such as speed of response, knowledge, etc, or perhaps in your case documenting that you did not pass a requirement test.

I think that if you are 50 and using boards.ie then you are certainly 'with it' enough to mix it with call centre staff. The other thing to consider though is that call centres are established as a crash and burn 'factory'. This is how call centre companies and units, etc, make their money. Staff are generally treated quite low. I would not advise anyone to work in a call centre unless it is a stop-gap situation, so if I was you I would look on this as cloud with silver lining.

Go look for a job, if you want to, in Financial/Accounts area, large multi-nationals have these, and now say that you have some SAP training and experince!

Best of luck with your job hunt,

redspider

TempestSabre

Well the test may have been valid it was very unfair to not make this clear at the interview. Over the years I've had probabtions that varied in length from 1 month to one that last 9 months. Never had a test though. Thats a new HR tactic.

FranknFurter

gubby wrote:

My customer service skill are very good because I believe in giving Good Services to Customers.

Therin lies your problem.
They are (even thought they will deny it) seeking company-focused employees, not customer-focused employees.
Anyone who has ever had to ring ESB will im sure agree.

Jaded old Biddy from bally-go-backwards who has a tongue that could sand a wall and the emotional responses of a dead hyena WILL be employed in a millisecond.

A few decent people slip though the customer service HR dept, but they are few and far between, in my experience.

Apply to their SALES dept, and Im sure they will grab you as long as they can convince you they are selling a good product.

b

esperanza

Dear Gubby,

I do sympathise with you. With such high results in those tests, it is clear that it is a clear case of age discrimination. Aren't you, now that you are unemployed, entitled to free legal advice?

I'm sure you will find some other possibilities, if you're Internet savvy perhaps there are even opportunities to work from home and be your own boss. At least then age discrimination is not an important factor.

Doctor DooM

I had a test with my current company but if you failed you just had to keep sitting the test til you got it. The trainers were good people though and dropped ALOT of hints.

This sounds like a horrible situation. Probation periods make it very akward to do anything about it.

Our man in Havana

The unfair dismissals act is the problem, it needs a radical overhaul.

ck100

tests are pointless. i did an aptitude test, a week later i got a letter stating i failed and good luck looking for a job. They rang me the next day offering me a job.... looking back i should have said no....

mountainyman

redspider wrote:

Go look for a job, if you want to, in Financial/Accounts area, large multi-nationals have these, and now say that you have some SAP training and experince!

Very Good advice Redspider

redspider wrote:

This is unfortunate, but under probationary "rules" an employer can terminate the contract of an employee on a subjective basis, and there is not much you can do about it.

You are completely wrong. If there has been discrimination the OP amy be entitled to some punitive compensation, She sholud definitely talk to a lawyer or to the Free Legal Advice Centre in South Mall. They are only open twice a month.

MM

lostexpectation

talk to the person who would have been your superiviser in job about it.

Mrs. MacGyver

Contact the department of enterprise , trade nad employment to see where you stand on the legislative side of things.

onedmc

If this wasn't explained fully to you then i think you should talk to a solicitor.

if you have suffered a loss of income because of their actions then you have somthing to go on.

DOLEMAN

mountainyman wrote:

You are completely wrong. If there has been discrimination the OP amy be entitled to some punitive compensation, She sholud definitely talk to a lawyer or to the Free Legal Advice Centre in South Mall. They are only open twice a month.
MM

Because she was on probation, I don't even think they need to give a reason for her dismissal.

It's 1+ years employment when you get rights...

the_syco

gubby wrote:

I would be interested to get an opinion on this. I was working in a full time job which i liked well enough but wanted less hours. so I applied for a job with a big well know company. I was interviewed, got the job, got a contract initially for 12 months. 9 people started training with me. after the first week of training we were told that at the end of the second and final week there would be an assessment and the results would determin if we would keep our jobs. Now, I honestly didnt think I did too badly I scored 77% and 66% and even though there was a lot to learn I felt that I was capeable of handling the job. However, after the final exam another lady and I were told that we didnt score high enough. Good luck and thanks. Now I am rather annoyed because I was not told this possibility at the interview stage. would I have given up my job if I knew the full score? I dont know but I would have had a choice. Now I am unemployed. I cant even put in my cv that I had three weeks training in this system.
Am I wrong to be annoyed? btw the other lady is also very annoyed.:mad:

Aye, it sucks. happened to me. Got 66%, I think, but needed 84%. No chance of doing the test again. Was told to hand in my security badge, and all stuff I got during the training (info on their company specific programs). Was disappointed, but I was told about it in hte interview. The only thing I wasn't happy about was the foreigners also being trained didn't have to do the test, and were employed straight away.

SDooM wrote:

I had a test with my current company but if you failed you just had to keep sitting the test til you got it. The trainers were good people though and dropped ALOT of hints.

Heh. Sounds like a place out in Park West, tbh;)

TempestSabre

the_syco wrote:

A....foreigners also being trained didn't have to do the test, and were employed straight away...

Thats not right. :mad:

the_syco

TempestSabre wrote:

Thats not right. :mad:

I know, but complaining about it wouldn't have gotten me the job, so I left it at that.

TempestSabre

Hard to get proof, but if you did have it you could report it.