Abuse from my employee

Hardupemployer

Hello,

An employee of mine is very abusive, aggressive and hostile.
He resents we have not sacked people to keep his hours up and fancies himself as an expert in employment law and thinks he speaks on behalf of the other employees despite the fact he is not well liked. With us over a year.
We rarely have an issue and if we do it is sorted quickly, we don't go in for having rows with our staff.
Today he verbally abused me over the phone, calling abusive names f'ing this and that and said sack me and I'll sue you ?

What can I do ?

byhookorbycrook

Do you have witnesses to this?

Hardupemployer

No, it was on the telephone.

Mr Simpson

If he verbally abused you, I'd say an official warning is needed. If he continues, then you may have grounds for dismissal. Read up on the employment laws, I cant remember them exactly, but after a few written warnings, an employee is liable to dismissal

Be careful though, keep detailed records and if possible, dont talk on the phone, if he has a problem, organise a meeting and have witnesses present.

Frynge

Maybe consider using the services of a company like Peninsula Business Services. They are a very handy thing to have, when thinks like this happen you call them and tell them, they then tell you how to handle the situation in writing(email) as long as you do what they suggest you are covered if you are sued.

I don't have anything to do with them other than use them.

dodzy

Hardupemployer wrote: »

Hello,

An employee of mine is very abusive, aggressive and hostile.
He resents we have not sacked people to keep his hours up and fancies himself as an expert in employment law and thinks he speaks on behalf of the other employees despite the fact he is not well liked. With us over a year.
We rarely have an issue and if we do it is sorted quickly, we don't go in for having rows with our staff.
Today he verbally abused me over the phone, calling abusive names f'ing this and that and said sack me and I'll sue you ?

What can I do ?

Obviously hearing only one side, but if he is as you portray him, hE sounds like a right prick. If no disciplinary action has taken place, commence the procedure. I assume you have a procedure in place?

Generally, a formal caution, verbal warning, written warning, final written, suspension and the gate. Varies widely from org to org of course.

Eitherway, irrespective of org size, get the ball rolling and stop the rot. Document EVERYTHING.

Some tools out there think they are bullet proof & invinceable. Problem is normally down to a weak, spineless, unorganised HR division who let the problem fester.

Seen it many times before. Get it sorted. You won't regret it.

phoenix999

Knowledge is power. The guy obviously thinks he knows more than he does. People can't behave in that manner and expect to keep a job. And suing people costs money. All bluster on his part I'd say OP. And I presume if you had to sack people for lack of work, he would be on the list? Last in, first out rule.

Agent_99

generally it's
Verbal Warning
First Written Warning
Second Written Warning
Final Written Warning
Dismissal..
Steps can be skipped if the level of the offence warrant it for instance theft, physical abuse etc can lead to straight dismissal. Keep records, don't let anything or instance slide, he will get the hint very quickly. Have witnesses for you and him at each meeting and explain in detail what will happen next if it occurres again. If he is an expert in employment law he will know exactly what route you are taking he will follow it or jump off the path and shut up.
Best of luck.

tatli_lokma

In my experience when a situation like the OP outlines crops up, there is blame on both parts. If the employee behaves like that in the first place in work and thinks it acceptable then you need to take a good look at your management style. I'm not saying you 'deserve' to be spoken to like that, but there is usually some contributing factor. Either he has no respect for you as a manager - in which case you need to ask why? are you too hard assed? not hard assed enough? do you communicate well with staff? do you only speak to staff when something is wrong or to instruct them to do something?

the other option is that he is just a rude and nasty piece of work. But again, if he is, you need to manage that situation and as others have said address it and nip it in the bud.

tony81

Give him a verbal warning explaining it's for his name-calling and use of bad language on a specific date.
Ideally hr will give the warning while you just witness it. You must allow him to take a representative - i.e another staff member but no one external.
You must also explain where he is in the disciplinary process and the usual process, ie verbal, written, final written, etc.
Explain how long the verbal warning will stay on his file.
If he accepts the warning, explain that he will be given a letter to sign... This letter just acts as a record and isn't actually a written warning.

Then write a letter saying something like "you have been given a verbal warning on 25/1/13 for an incident on 23/1/13. It has been explained to you that abusive language and name calling will not be tolerated." Ask him to sign the letter, explaining that failing to do so will result in a written warning.

Procrastastudy

A note of caution. Warnings are not like yellow cards/red cards you have to follow a process and then, ideally, hand over to another party. The process would be something like;

i) An investigatory meeting or meetings finding out what happened and why.
ii) A 'charge' given to the employee with all the evidence and the employee given time to prepare a defence.
iii) A disciplinary meeting, conducted by a 3rd party, were both sides are presented and a decision made.

Then and only then can a decision be made on what warning to give, if any. The guy won;t need to be an employment law expert to haul you in front of EAT if you don't follow correct procedures. Given you are resorting to a internet forum for advice I'd say there are a number of issues that need to be addressed at your company. That said there is no excuse for being verbally abusive and there is no reason why it shouldn't be treated as gross misconduct, which can result in summary dismissal but only is the proper procedures are followed!

Bandana boy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

A note of caution. Warnings are not like yellow cards/red cards you have to follow a process and then, ideally, hand over to another party. The process would be something like;

i) An investigatory meeting or meetings finding out what happened and why.
ii) A 'charge' given to the employee with all the evidence and the employee given time to prepare a defence.
iii) A disciplinary meeting, conducted by a 3rd party, were both sides are presented and a decision made.

Then and only then can a decision be made on what warning to give, if any. The guy won;t need to be an employment law expert to haul you in front of EAT if you don't follow correct procedures. Given you are resorting to a internet forum for advice I'd say there are a number of issues that need to be addressed at your company. That said there is no excuse for being verbally abusive and there is no reason why it shouldn't be treated as gross misconduct, which can result in summary dismissal but only is the proper procedures are followed!

It is very true that unless you follow the process you have outlined you will find it harder to win a case if it were to be brought in front of EAT, but by no means is this the law.
Do you have a procedure for discipling and employee in your terms and conditions ?
If not you could be within your rights to sack the employee for this offence and not give further warnings.

Procrastastudy

Bandana boy wrote: »

It is very true that unless you follow the process you have outlined you will find it harder to win a case if it were to be brought in front of EAT, but by no means is this the law.

I'm aware we've (I've) been asked to tone down the legalese but with respect I believe your statement above to be incorrect. Re Haughey, UCD v Flanegan and a litany of other cases that establish a right to fair procedures and 'constitutional justice'. While it's true that the procedures are relaxed for private employment, where someone's job is at stake the bar is set very high. To the point where a solicitor may be present.

Bandana boy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm aware we've (I've) been asked to tone down the legalese but with respect I believe your statement above to be incorrect. Re Haughey, UCD v Flanegan and a litany of other cases that establish a right to fair procedures and 'constitutional justice'. While it's true that the procedures are relaxed for private employment, where someone's job is at stake the bar is set very high. To the point where a solicitor may be present.

An employer cannot have a ruling against them for not having followed your guidelines as they are not the law.

That said, many rulings on other matters the employee might have raised will hold more weight if the employer has not followed these generally accepted workplace guidelines.

Procrastastudy

Bandana boy wrote: »

An employer cannot have a ruling against them for not having followed your guidelines as they are not the law.

That said, many rulings on other matters the employee might have raised will hold more weight if the employer has not followed these generally accepted workplace guidelines.

I didn't say the guidelines were law but out of interest which ones do you think are wrong? Are you aware of the right to fair procedures and what that entails? You are aware that that the right to fair procedures is a legal, and constitutional right?

An employer will have a ruling made against them if they have not followed fair procedures. That would be very similar to the process I have outlined.

dodzy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I didn't say the guidelines were law but out of interest which ones do you think are wrong? Are you aware of the right to fair procedures and what that entails? You are aware that that the right to fair procedures is a legal, and constitutional right?

An employer will have a ruling made against them if they have not followed fair procedures. That would be very similar to the process I have outlined.

Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with disciplining poor performing staff who act like pricks for the best part....

A fear of the EAT

To hell with that. Initiate the disc. process. More often than not, this alone will be enough to frighten the bejesus out of most and realign them. As long as you are consistent, fair and document everything, you as an employer have nothing to fear if the threat of an EAT ever becomes a reality.

Procrastastudy

dodzy wrote: »

Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with disciplining poor performing staff who act like pricks for the best part....

A fear of the EAT

To hell with that. Initiate the disc. process. More often than not, this alone will be enough to frighten the bejesus out of most and realign them. As long as you are consistent, fair and document everything, you as an employer have nothing to fear if the threat of an EAT ever becomes a reality.

OP this is a classic example of how not to run a business and why advice off the internet for this sort of thing is not a good idea. The disciplinary process is not there to frighten people it's there to resolve disputes. If employers were a bit more clued in there wouldn't be a need for such draconian employment legislation.

Even having an employee take you to EAT, even with a spurious claim, is going to cost you time and money. Do things properly to start with you'll find employees a lot more co-operative. Investigate properly when things go wrong, you'll find they go wrong a lot less.

smcgiff

Wasn't there a case recently where an employee had to be rehired after being sacked for calling his boss a moron.

Procrastastudy

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-who-was-sacked-for-calling-boss-a-moron-gets-job-back-3358442.html

Note even in that short article notice being given to the employee re consequences.

Bandana boy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I didn't say the guidelines were law but out of interest which ones do you think are wrong? Are you aware of the right to fair procedures and what that entails? You are aware that that the right to fair procedures is a legal, and constitutional right?

An employer will have a ruling made against them if they have not followed fair procedures. That would be very similar to the process I have outlined.

I have no issue with any of your guidelines ,I think they are fairly standard procedure now in business for good reasons and several companies I have worked with have now put them in employee contracts.

That said they are guidelines ,If an employee is not performing you can sack them without following these guidelines (provided they have nothing in their contract).

I think people think they will have 3 bites at the cherry in any job when that is just not the case.
Your case in Eat will be judged on the issues, if an employee can point to vagueness over the issue or claim lack of knowledge on the issue that induced the firing and the company has not shown that they tried to work with the employee through this then Eat is likely to favour the employee.
But if you have clearly stated rules around the issue then there is no need for the employer to go through a 3 strikes and your out process.
For example ,striking a colleague,theft,leaking confidential information,failure to follow H&S procedures can all lead to instant dismissal without following your procedures and your case would last minutes in EAT

Procrastastudy

Bandana boy wrote: »

I have no issue with any of your guidelines ,I think they are fairly standard procedure now in business for good reasons and several companies I have worked with have now put them in employee contracts.

That said they are guidelines ,If an employee is not performing you can sack them without following these guidelines (provided they have nothing in their contract).

This is where you are mistaken. The right to fair procedures is a Constitutional right. The only way to avoid it would be if you were hired on contract on a temporary basis. The majority of traditionally employed people would have the rights listed.

Bandana boy wrote: »

I think people think they will have 3 bites at the cherry in any job when that is just not the case.
Your case in Eat will be judged on the issues, if an employee can point to vagueness over the issue or claim lack of knowledge on the issue that induced the firing and the company has not shown that they tried to work with the employee through this then Eat is likely to favour the employee.
But if you have clearly stated rules around the issue then there is no need for the employer to go through a 3 strikes and your out process.
For example ,striking a colleague,theft,leaking confidential information,failure to follow H&S procedures can all lead to instant dismissal without following your procedures and your case would last minutes in EAT

You're talking about the merits if a decision and I'm talking about the procedure used to arrive at that decision. The two are completely separate issues - perhaps this is were the confusion is creeping in.

dodzy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

OP this is a classic example of how not to run a business and why advice off the internet for this sort of thing is not a good idea. The disciplinary process is not there to frighten people it's there to resolve disputes. If employers were a bit more clued in there wouldn't be a need for such draconian employment legislation.

Even having an employee take you to EAT, even with a spurious claim, is going to cost you time and money. Do things properly to start with you'll find employees a lot more co-operative. Investigate properly when things go wrong, you'll find they go wrong a lot less.

Unfortunately, the world, and most importantly the workplace, is not that straight forward. Some employees do need to be frightened.

bbam

First thing OP needs to do is become very familliar with their companies policies regarding employee behaviour and discipline...

I'd be sitting down with the employee, with all documentation printed and highlighted. Clearly showing where the breach has been and how unacceptable the behaviour is. The employee can bring in a witniss if they so wish, must be a company employee and they may not speak or interject or their presence can be terminated.

If you with start with a verbal warning (documented of course), the term "verbal" does not mean it is word of mouth only, I'd be documenting it and having it signed my both you, YOUR manager and the employee. If he refuses to sign, have another manager standing bye to step in and sign it as delivered but refused to sign.

There is no need for any 3rd party or specialists.. Managers manage. Know your procedures, know your policies. Line up your manager before proceeding ensuring they have signed off on the steps BEFORE sitting down with the employee..

At the end of the documentation ensure it states:

1. the employee has a right to appeal the decision to you or another manager if they so wish. Thus the reason to have your manager in the loop.
2. Any further breaches of policy, procedure or misbehaving will result in the disciplinary process being proceeded through up to and possibly including termination.
3. I would always set out a time period, expecting exemplementary behaviour from the employee, six months for a first example and then nione months and then a year.

Uncle Ben

Bandana boy wrote: »

I have no issue with any of your guidelines ,I think they are fairly standard procedure now in business for good reasons and several companies I have worked with have now put them in employee contracts.

That said they are guidelines ,If an employee is not performing you can sack them without following these guidelines (provided they have nothing in their contract).

I think people think they will have 3 bites at the cherry in any job when that is just not the case.
Your case in Eat will be judged on the issues, if an employee can point to vagueness over the issue or claim lack of knowledge on the issue that induced the firing and the company has not shown that they tried to work with the employee through this then Eat is likely to favour the employee.
But if you have clearly stated rules around the issue then there is no need for the employer to go through a 3 strikes and your out process.
For example ,striking a colleague,theft,leaking confidential information,failure to follow H&S procedures can all lead to instant dismissal without following your procedures and your case would last minutes in EAT

Your case in an EAT will be judged on the right procedures being followed, long before the issue has been even heard.