Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??

ButterflyGirl23

Hi
I think i was just let go because i could be getting pregnant soon...

I started an admin job two months ago. It was going very well, i got on well with everybody, was never late or sick and did everything that was asked of me.

On Monday, the manager took me aside and fired me. He said the company wanted to remain small and wanted to be more sales orientated. I got a bit of a fright and asked him was there anything that i had done wrong. He assured me it was nothing that i did and said that the company was been restructured.

He said it was not his decision and that it came from a manager that i haven't really dealt with much. I left in tears and the next day heard that the other admin staff (two of which that were hired after me and that i trained) were in shock and the engineers were all confused and askng questions of what is going on.

My manager couldn't give me a straight answer and noone in the office knew what was going on. My manager assured me it was not his decision and was out of his hands. The sales thing makes no sense as i made more sales last month than any of the other admin staff.

My confidance had been severly knocked and moving forward, i know that in a new position, i will not feel very confidant.

The only reason i can think of is that they found out i was newly married and hoping to start a family soon. I was on 6 months probation, do i have any comeback fron this or should i just move on?

Peregrine

Moved from Careers & Jobs Discussion to Work Problems. Please read their charter before posting. Thanks.

Stheno

To be honest no.

If you were pregnant they couldn't fire you without reason, but as you are not pregnant as per your post, you are still on probation and can be let go.

I'd half wonder if you are overthinking this, and wondering if that's why they decided to let you go, when they told you they wanted to keep the headcount low?

davo10

You think you are being discriminated against because you are "thinking" of becoming pregnant? How is this possible if you are neither actually pregnant nor has your employer been informed that you are pregnant?

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

You think you are being discriminated against because you are "thinking" of becoming pregnant? How is this possible if you are neither actually pregnant nor has your employer been informed that you are pregnant?

It's highly possible: senior manager gets wind of newly married and planning to have kids, and says "get rid of her now, we won't be able to once she's up the duff". Junior manager has to do what he's told.

Totally unable to be proven, of course.

And not even illegal: you're not allowed to discriminate against someone because they're pregant, but can because they're fat, ugly, plan to travel, etc.


OP - just move on. If they're the sort that would do this, then they're not the sort who you want to be working for. Good luck with the job hunting, just keep believing that there IS a better job out there which you 100% deserve to get.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's highly possible: senior manager gets wind of newly married and planning to have kids, and says "get rid of her now, we won't be able to once she's up the duff". .

I asked how is it possible that the op feels she is being discriminated against based on pregnancy, when she is not pregnant.

Vallorrous

I think if the fact she was a newlwed woman was a bar to her being employed, surely they wouldn't have hired OP in the first place? Sometimes companies restructure for unfathomable reasons, I think you had a lucky escape OP! Also if you believe they were discriminating against you, it's unlikely they'd have let you pass probation anyway so it's best they tell you straight out x

barneystinson

davo10 wrote: »

I asked how is it possible that the op feels she is being discriminated against based on pregnancy, when she is not pregnant.

See the question mark in the OP and thread title - she's asking questions, not purporting to know the answers...

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

I asked how is it possible that the op feels she is being discriminated against based on pregnancy, when she is not pregnant.

Maybe you're on mobile, and cannot see the thread-subject which is "Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??"

livedadream

ButterflyGirl23 wrote: »

Hi
I think i was just let go because i could be getting pregnant soon...

I started an admin job two months ago. It was going very well, i got on well with everybody, was never late or sick and did everything that was asked of me.

On Monday, the manager took me aside and fired me. He said the company wanted to remain small and wanted to be more sales orientated. I got a bit of a fright and asked him was there anything that i had done wrong. He assured me it was nothing that i did and said that the company was been restructured.

He said it was not his decision and that it came from a manager that i haven't really dealt with much. I left in tears and the next day heard that the other admin staff (two of which that were hired after me and that i trained) were in shock and the engineers were all confused and askng questions of what is going on.

My manager couldn't give me a straight answer and noone in the office knew what was going on. My manager assured me it was not his decision and was out of his hands. The sales thing makes no sense as i made more sales last month than any of the other admin staff.



The only reason i can think of is that they found out i was newly married and hoping to start a family soon. I was on 6 months probation, do i have any comeback fron this or should i just move on?

Firstly, you wernt fired, you just didnt pass your probationary period.
either way i know it is upsetting and even worse when the company wont give you a reason.

Dont let is knock your confidence and try not to over think it, try to think of it as a two way street.

during your probation you can be let go for any reason, i dont want to go putting ideas in your head but some of the reasons i have seen people not complete their probation are:

someone didnt like them and it was easier to get rid of them than the person complaining
the org couldnt afford them after hiring them
they were late/sick/moany (i know you said you wernt im just giving examples)
not the right fit with the org

there are literally a million reasons why this happens.

try not to over think it.

there is no way you were let go for getting married. even the most backward of companies arnt that stupid.

unless you were wandering around the office talking about how much you were loving being married and couldnt wait to start popping out babies and taking all the maternity leave in the world i cant see how that would come into it.

(on the downside, i have seen people not complete probation because their manager thought they had a poor attitude, were too annoying, talked too much, wound people up etc etc)

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Maybe you're on mobile, and cannot see the thread-subject which is "Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??"

Yip, and further down in the first post she said she is "hoping to start a family soon". Either way is immaterial as sh is not pregnant so cannot be discriminated against as the condition for discrimination does not exist. Simples really.

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Maybe you're on mobile, and cannot see the thread-subject which is "Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??"

ah (and this is me playing devils advocate) sure then none of us women would get hired because we are fertile and could possibly get pregnant at some stage in our 40 odd year working life.

Sunny Dayz

I doubt very much they fired you because you might get pregnant, nobody is that stupid. You don't sack someone because they might end up taking 6 months unpaid leave sometime in the future.
You say you have been there two months. And you have trained up 2 newer staff since you started. I'm guessing so that you are fairly qualified, competent in your job and can command a higher salary. Is it perhaps that you were brought in to train up the department and once you trained up the other two people, you were let go? If you earn a higher salary, and you have trained these tow other people, have you effectively trained them to do your role.
Unfortunately I've seen people dismissed, just because. In one place I worked a number of us were on fixed term contracts all finishing at the same time, I wasn't kept on because my salary was higher and I didn't kiss the manager's a$$. Other less competent and cheaper staff were kept on.

Mrs OBumble

livedadream wrote: »

ah (and this is me playing devils advocate) sure then none of us women would get hired because we are fertile and could possibly get pregnant at some stage in our 40 odd year working life.

The OPs chances of getting pregnant are several zilion times larger than my chances, at this point in time. And I still have 20 years of working life left.

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OPs chances of getting pregnant are several zilion times larger than my chances, at this point in time. And I still have 20 years of working life left.

yeah but does that mean that someone shouldnt hire her over you because you are several zillion time less to get boxed?

no, because that would be riduclious...

in real life people dont think that way, you dont see a ring on a young girls finger and say, jesus she must be riding all around herself now shes married and is sure to get knocked up, better not hire her, ill hire that man over there, he has no responsibilities forthcoming.

aphex™

davo10 wrote: »

Yip, and further down in the first post she said she is "hoping to start a family soon". Either way is immaterial as sh is not pregnant so cannot be discriminated against as the condition for discrimination does not exist. Simples really.

A solicitor should be sought as you can rephrase that. She is a female of child-bearing age. And all that imples re. starting a family.

Still hard to prove in court as they didn't have to produce evidence because of the probation period stuff. Might be worth trying to gently rattle their cages a bit tho.

livedadream

aphex™ wrote: »

A solicitor should be sought as you can rephrase that. She is a female of child-bearing age. And all that imples re. starting a family.

Still hard to prove in court as they didn't have to produce evidence because of the probation period stuff. Might be worth trying to gently rattle their cages a bit tho.

a solicitors advice shouldnt be sought, she was on probation, she isnt pregnant. She did not pass her probationary period and no reason needs to be given by an employer for this.

this stuff drives me demented, she wasnt discriminated against, yes she's peeved off and yes maybe they could have handled it better but they did nothing legally or ethically wrong.

Bandana boy

It seems a bit of a jump from somebody 2 months into a probationary period being let go too its because I might get pregnant !

Surely if they were likely to discriminate because of this factor , it would have shown in there not hiring a Women of childbearing age in the first place .

I would say 2 months in the far more likelihood is performance issues with OP or a downturn in prospects for the company.
You will find managers who do not legally have to give a reason or justify letting somebody go they will do so in the least confrontational manner possible.

Carlos Orange

livedadream wrote: »

this stuff drives me demented, she wasnt discriminated against, yes she's peeved off and yes maybe they could have handled it better but they did nothing legally or ethically wrong.

Nobody really knows one way or the other whether the company has done anything ethically wrong. The OP sounds more confused than peeved and is clutching at straws. They may be right or they may be wrong. Either way, it is what they can prove that matters. Probably better to just take it on the chin and move on.

Irish_Elect_Eng

Frankly, No, it is very unlikely that you were let go for possibly becoming pregnant.

(1) Most likely, the company is telling the truth small company, hired one person to many in your role. Let you go to spend money elsewhere.

(2) Or you were not what they were looking for, either personally or professionally it was felt that you were not a good fit for their team or company.

Don't over-analyse.... Move on.

Dial Hard

livedadream wrote:

in real life people dont think that way, you dont see a ring on a young girls finger and say, jesus she must be riding all around herself now shes married and is sure to get knocked up, better not hire her, ill hire that man over there, he has no responsibilities forthcoming.

You're extremely naive if you think that *exactly* that kind of factoring-in doesn't come into hiring decisions. People in this very forum have said time and again that, all other factors being equal, they'd hire a man in the "likely to be starting a family soon" demographic over a woman.

wokingvoter

aphex™ wrote: »

A solicitor should be sought as you can rephrase that. She is a female of child-bearing age. And all that imples re. starting a family.

Still hard to prove in court as they didn't have to produce evidence because of the probation period stuff. Might be worth trying to gently rattle their cages a bit tho.

What manner should this cage rattling take do you advise?

davo10

wokingvoter wrote: »

What manner should this cage rattling take do you advise?

I wondered that, the obvious reply from the employer would be " how could we have discriminated against you based on pregnancy when we didn't know you were pregnant and you don't know if you are pregnant?" The mind boggles.

Stealthfins

I'd suggest going to a solicitor,she definitely has a case because her productivity was above others.

She trained in other members of staff,a friend of mine was a union member and was let go because he was a union member.
The people left on weren't in the union and under qualified for their roll's.


The company couldn't prove they let him go because he was in the union and was well up on employment legislation.

So they lost out big time,there's senior council and solicitors who'd make mince meat out of her employer's.

davo10

Stealthfins wrote: »

I'd suggest going to a solicitor,she definitely has a case because her productivity was above others.

She trained in other members of staff,a friend of mine was a union member and was let go because he was a union member.
The people left on weren't in the union and under qualified for their roll's.


The company couldn't prove they let him go because he was in the union and was well up on employment legislation.

So they lost out big time,there's senior council and solicitors who'd make mince meat out of her employer's.

She definitely has a case? What case? She was still on probation, she was employed for less than one year so doesn't have the protection of the UDA nor the ET, and is not pregnant as far as the employer knows, so what case do you feel she "definitely" has? Which Senior Council would take on a case of an employee let go after 8 weeks with no grounds for claiming discrimination?

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

(1) Most likely, the company is telling the truth small company, hired one person to many in your role. Let you go to spend money elsewhere.

Hard to see how a company could come to this conclusion after two months, unless they are just total wasters. What has changed from two months ago when she was given the job?

OP - did you leave another job to start this one? If so, it is very, very bad form to let you go for the reason given.

Stheno

RainyDay wrote: »

Hard to see how a company could come to this conclusion after two months, unless they are just total wasters. What has changed from two months ago when she was given the job?

OP - did you leave another job to start this one? If so, it is very, very bad form to let you go for the reason given.

OP said there was a restructure going on?

livedadream

Dial Hard wrote: »

You're extremely naive if you think that *exactly* that kind of factoring-in doesn't come into hiring decisions. People in this very forum have said time and again that, all other factors being equal, they'd hire a man in the "likely to be starting a family soon" demographic over a woman.

like i said 'in real life'

boards.ie is no where near to real life, people can say whatever they want here with no repercussions.

posters saying that in boards doesnt mean they do it in real life, no one is that stupid or misguided.

RainyDay

Stheno wrote: »

OP said there was a restructure going on?

A restructuring that was unknown at the time she was offered the job or started? Something smells here.

uck51js9zml2yt

RainyDay wrote: »

A restructuring that was unknown at the time she was offered the job or started? Something smells here.

Like what ?

There may be a myriad of reasons why the OP had her contract terminated. The facts are she was still in her probationary period and they had every right to do what they did.
She may have been unsuitable, didn't gel with the team or just be an excess to requirements. We don't know and only have one side of the story.

There's no smoking gun here!

RainyDay

Yareli Shy Stockiness wrote: »

Like what ?

There may be a myriad of reasons why the OP had her contract terminated. The facts are she was still in her probationary period and they had every right to do what they did.
She may have been unsuitable, didn't gel with the team or just be an excess to requirements. We don't know and only have one side of the story.

There's no smoking gun here!

Funny how you highlight how little we know about this case, but yet you are absolutely convinced that there is no problem here. You're right, we don't really know what or why, but something does smell.

How could she be 'excess to requirements' just 2 months after being hired? If she was unsuitable, they should have told her what the problems were, and given her the chance to fix them.

goldenhoarde

CEO -> Senior Mgmt "Need to save X grand a year"
Senior Mgmt -> Junior Mgmt "need to let someone go"
Junior Mgmt "Hmmmmm whats the easiet way to do this"
Junior Mgmt "New girl you're outta here"
Junior Mgmt pats themselves on the back "that was easy - no redundancy, unfair dismissal etc as they weren't here long enough plus she has those other two trained up, not as good as her but they are cheaper/I get on better with them than her(insert any reason here)"
Junior Mgmt -> Senior Mgmt "Job done Ain't I the best"

livedadream

goldenhoarde wrote: »

CEO -> Senior Mgmt "Need to save X grand a year"
Senior Mgmt -> Junior Mgmt "need to let someone go"
Junior Mgmt "Hmmmmm whats the easiet way to do this"
Junior Mgmt "New girl you're outta here"
Junior Mgmt pats themselves on the back "that was easy - no redundancy, unfair dismissal etc as they weren't here long enough plus she has those other two trained up, not as good as her but they are cheaper/I get on better with them than her(insert any reason here)"
Junior Mgmt -> Senior Mgmt "Job done Ain't I the best"

lets point out in case its not obvious that being pregnant or potentially getting pregnant doesnt have anything to do with what was said above and that makes the most sense to me.

RainyDay

goldenhoarde wrote: »

CEO -> Senior Mgmt "Need to save X grand a year"
Senior Mgmt -> Junior Mgmt "need to let someone go"
Junior Mgmt "Hmmmmm whats the easiet way to do this"
Junior Mgmt "New girl you're outta here"
Junior Mgmt pats themselves on the back "that was easy - no redundancy, unfair dismissal etc as they weren't here long enough plus she has those other two trained up, not as good as her but they are cheaper/I get on better with them than her(insert any reason here)"
Junior Mgmt -> Senior Mgmt "Job done Ain't I the best"

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

livedadream

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

maybe she was winding people up and thats the reason they told her instead of listen your winding mary up and shes been here longer so instead of having you here we're going to keep the newbies and get rid of you.

there are a 100 reasons she didnt pass her probation thats why probationary periods exist so if the employments not working out both can split without fear or retribution.

the OP is upset obviously, but there no need for a wild goose chase as to why...
encouraging her to take legal action or contact a solicitor isnt helping anyone.

RainyDay

livedadream wrote: »

maybe she was winding people up and thats the reason they told her instead of listen your winding mary up and shes been here longer so instead of having you here we're going to keep the newbies and get rid of you.

You might be right, but if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If she's not doing what's required, they should give her a clear message about what needs to change.

Mrs OBumble

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

Easily enough: lost a big customer, didn't make projected sales for the 2 months, company owner decided he wants bigger drawings this year so he can swan off overseas / buy a bigger boat. Etc.

2 months is 1/6th of a year. A week can be a long time in business.

RainyDay

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Easily enough: lost a big customer, didn't make projected sales for the 2 months, company owner decided he wants bigger drawings this year so he can swan off overseas / buy a bigger boat. Etc.

2 months is 1/6th of a year. A week can be a long time in business.

Again, you might be right, and again if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If you take on an employee, it is a serious commitment, and shouldn't be done lightly. She may well (though it is not clear) have given up another job for this one. It would be really bad form to let an employee go on a whim in circumstances like that.

Bandana boy

RainyDay wrote: »

How do you think the need to save X grand came up just two months after hiring the OP?

A budgeted expense was under called
A customer was lost
A raw material that is integral has become more expensive
A competitor has under cut them and they need to respond

I could go on all day

And this might have been in the works for more than two months , but the decision to act might have just been made.

they might have being trying to trade their way out of difficulty's .
I have seen this a lot
Company has problem hires sales people to trade their way out
Short term does not work and they change tack and fire sales people and hire accountants to reduce the cost base.


I am reminded of the saying , if you hear hooves expect Horses not Zebras
Jumping to discrimination on a pregnancy shes does not have is expecting Giraffes.

uck51js9zml2yt

RainyDay wrote: »

Again, you might be right, and again if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If you take on an employee, it is a serious commitment, and shouldn't be done lightly. She may well (though it is not clear) have given up another job for this one. It would be really bad form to let an employee go on a whim in circumstances like that.

You really don't have much of an understanding of how business works.
Its very easy for a big customer to cancel or a new contract not to materialise or material prices to increase. Not s sign of bad management just part of being in business.

You're the one smelling something but so far haven't said what that was and then castigating everyone who says what happens in the real world.
As I said we don't actually know "why" and all we have is one side of the story. Being under probation doesn't require any reason for dismissal.

RainyDay

Yareli Shy Stockiness wrote: »

You really don't have much of an understanding of how business works.
Its very easy for a big customer to cancel or a new contract not to materialise or material prices to increase. Not s sign of bad management just part of being in business.

You're the one smelling something but so far haven't said what that was and then castigating everyone who says what happens in the real world.
As I said we don't actually know "why" and all we have is one side of the story. Being under probation doesn't require any reason for dismissal.

Bandana boy wrote: »

A budgeted expense was under called
A customer was lost
A raw material that is integral has become more expensive
A competitor has under cut them and they need to respond

I could go on all day

And this might have been in the works for more than two months , but the decision to act might have just been made.

they might have being trying to trade their way out of difficulty's .
I have seen this a lot
Company has problem hires sales people to trade their way out
Short term does not work and they change tack and fire sales people and hire accountants to reduce the cost base.


I am reminded of the saying , if you hear hooves expect Horses not Zebras
Jumping to discrimination on a pregnancy shes does not have is expecting Giraffes.

SO they should have told that at interview, right? We really haven't got a clue whether we'll have a job for you in a month or two month's time, so you decide from there if you'd like to leave your current job and come and work for us?

meeeeh

RainyDay wrote: »

SO they should have told that at interview, right? We really haven't got a clue whether we'll have a job for you in a month or two month's time, so you decide from there if you'd like to leave your current job and come and work for us?

Being a crap manager really doesn't matter a bit neither does the reason why they fired her. The reasons could be completely bonkers or could be valid but considering op Isn't pregnant it is hard to claim it was discrimination. The fact she is a woman at a certain stage in life could count against her. Either because they didn't want her enough to also deal with possible maternity or they didn't like her enough to keep her any longer because pregnancy would limit their ability to let her go. However this is all speculation and I don't think anything could be proven.

BTW we had an ex employees mother asking why her son got very basic reference. She was in complete shock when she was told that we didn't want to lie on the reference. Two people can have completely different perception about ones abilities and suitability. It is not necessary that the manager's is right but up to a year there is no justification needed for their decision.

Dial Hard

livedadream wrote:

like i said 'in real life'

boards.ie is no where near to real life, people can say whatever they want here with no repercussions.

posters saying that in boards doesnt mean they do it in real life, no one is that stupid or misguided.

And in real life I used to take off my wedding ring in interviews because, like it or not, it *is* a factor.

Unfair? Yes? Annoying? Yes. But unless an employer is stupid enough to tell a female candidate that that's why they weren't hired, almost impossible to prove.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

You might be right, but if you are, it is a sign that they are crap managers. If she's not doing what's required, they should give her a clear message about what needs to change.

No, business run on all different levels and it is often on a need-to know basis until a decision is made and cascaded downwards in an organisation. It is not unusual for lower level managers to be unaware of strategic decisions and make tactical decision that are not in alignment that need to be corrected once the strategy is rolled out officially.

The decision to reduce a workforce or change direction in a business is one that needs to be communicated effectively and definitively. It would be bed practice to let every people manager in the business know months in advance as it can impact productivity and morale.

I have been involved in decisions where sections of a company have been let go and the planning lasted months, it was very hard to work with those people for that time knowing that they were for the chop. So it is often vital to restrict information when strategic decisions are being made.

Manager = Evil, Employees =Good, is not a valid generalization.

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

No, business run on all different levels and it is often on a need-to know basis until a decision is made and cascaded downwards in an organisation. It is not unusual for lower level managers to be unaware of strategic decisions and make tactical decision that are not in alignment that need to be corrected once the strategy is rolled out officially.

The decision to reduce a workforce or change direction in a business is one that needs to be communicated effectively and definitively. It would be bed practice to let every people manager in the business know months in advance as it can impact productivity and morale.

I have been involved in decisions where sections of a company have been let go and the planning lasted months, it was very hard to work with those people for that time knowing that they were for the chop. So it is often vital to restrict information when strategic decisions are being made.

Manager = Evil, Employees =Good, is not a valid generalization.

Strangely enough, I'm aware that businesses run at all levels, and not everyone knows what's going on at all levels. And I'm aware that Manager=Evil, Employees = Good is not a great approach.

However, if you think that productivity and morale isn't going to be affected when employees see their peers giving up a job to take up a new position, and then being dumped after two months when someone up above has worked out their 'strategy', you are deluding yourself. If that is what happened in this case (and I appreciate that we don't have all the information here yet), it will be very damaging to the remaining employees if they see someone being treated badly and unfairly.

There are many ways and means to handle situations like this while continuing to maintain confidentiality. But recruiting someone, and then letting them go after two months for no good reason is not a good practice and will be very damaging to the reputation of the organisation and the morale and loyalty of the remaining employees.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

Strangely enough, I'm aware that businesses run at all levels, and not everyone knows what's going on at all levels. And I'm aware that Manager=Evil, Employees = Good is not a great approach.

However, if you think that productivity and morale isn't going to be affected when employees see their peers giving up a job to take up a new position, and then being dumped after two months when someone up above has worked out their 'strategy', you are deluding yourself. If that is what happened in this case (and I appreciate that we don't have all the information here yet), it will be very damaging to the remaining employees if they see someone being treated badly and unfairly.

There are many ways and means to handle situations like this while continuing to maintain confidentiality. But recruiting someone, and then letting them go after two months for no good reason is not a good practice and will be very damaging to the reputation of the organisation and the morale and loyalty of the remaining employees.

I agree that letting someone go after a short period is not desirable, it can have a significant negative impact on the person being let-go.

But in the case where the person is not effective or fitting in it is best to do so in a timely manner. This can be as a result of a poor hiring decision by the manager or poor performance by the employee. And you are absolutely correct that every dismissal, whether it be after 2 weeks or 2 decades impacts staff morale. But if there is a problem with a hiring decision, not dealing with issues causes more worse problems in the long run and dealing with things quickly is the best option.

I also agree we don't have much information and are just filling in the blanks. Strategy / Business needs is just one potential reason for the problem here. At the end of the day, even in good businesses this sort of things can happen when the stars align incorrectly.

I remember a case in a company I once worked for where a lady was taken on for Maternity cover as an employee had decided to take a year sabbatical following on from her maternity leave. The new employee was great, but the lady on maternity leave had to come back when her husband lost his job. The new employee was let go with the appropriate notice. From her perspective, I am sure that the company looked bad, but it was just unfortunate.

Changing jobs always carries some risk of not making it through the probation period, some companies let the probation period run its course with good support for the new employee to get up to speed before terminating the relationship, other act much more quickly and terminate as soon as there is an issue.

Maybe it was not going to be a good place to work and she dodged the bullet, who knows.

gozunda

OP - Go get some professional advice on this issue - things tend to get polarised round here very easily.

The 'reason' given does appear somewhat dodgy imo.

Best of luck.

Stheno

livedadream wrote: »

like i said 'in real life'

boards.ie is no where near to real life, people can say whatever they want here with no repercussions.

posters saying that in boards doesnt mean they do it in real life, no one is that stupid or misguided.

It's not yet ten years ago that I went to an interrview and the first question I was asked was, "you're married, obviously have children ( no idea how they thought this), how do you manage to commit to a role given your responsibility in other areas?"

I politely responded that I had no children and when later contacted by their head of HR to offer me the job, declined it on the basis of the interviers attitude

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

But in the case where the person is not effective or fitting in it is best to do so in a timely manner. This can be as a result of a poor hiring decision by the manager or poor performance by the employee. And you are absolutely correct that every dismissal, whether it be after 2 weeks or 2 decades impacts staff morale. But if there is a problem with a hiring decision, not dealing with issues causes more worse problems in the long run and dealing with things quickly is the best option.

Fully agree - but 'dealing with the problem' doesn't mean firing them, not initially at least. If they have a problem with the employee, they should absolutely talk to the employee first, and let them know what is expected of them, and give them a chance to meet the requirements.

Irish_Elect_Eng

RainyDay wrote: »

Fully agree - but 'dealing with the problem' doesn't mean firing them, not initially at least. If they have a problem with the employee, they should absolutely talk to the employee first, and let them know what is expected of them, and give them a chance to meet the requirements.

Which is what I said in my mail.

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Changing jobs always carries some risk of not making it through the probation period, some companies let the probation period run its course with good support for the new employee to get up to speed before terminating the relationship, others act much more quickly and terminate as soon as there is an issue.

There are some issues that can be corrected and other that cannot.

There are companies that work to develop new employees, others that do not.

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

Which is what I said in my mail.



There are some issues that can be corrected and other that cannot.

There are companies that work to develop new employees, others that do not.

I note carefully what you said and what you didn't say.

You didn't say that "When there is a problem with the employee during probation, any employer with half a sense of decency and fairness will communicate the issue to the employee and give them the opportunity to fix it".

I'm not looking for training courses and hugs and kisses or other development. Just a simple direct communication on what is expected and what is the gap.

There are no issues that can be corrected without communicating those issues.