Dismissed 1 day short of a year

Kiith

So a friend of mine was let go on Monday, with no notice and 1 days prior to her being there a year (she got two weeks notice, so the two weeks and the time she's been there is 1 day short of a year). She was a full time employee, and not a contractor. They told that her performance wasn't up to high enough standards, even though she was never told there was any issues.

If someone is being let go for performance issues, does the company not have to show that there were problems, or at least that it was raised with the employee before they were terminated?

She talked to a solicitor friend who said that because she hadn't been there a year, she had very little recourse. Does being an employee for more than a year give you more rights than if you were there less than a year?

This may very well be all legal, but they had a really ****ty attitude to her, and i was royally pissed off when i heard about it :mad:

Tenigate

Your friend got 2 weeks notice. That's fair.
Even within 2 years they could easily dismiss her with no redundancy, but it is better to get rid of underperforming employees sooner rather than later.
There's no point telling her she's underperforming and has to improve, when the fact is there are plenty of jobseekers out there and they'll probably hire a better person for the job.

wally1990

Tenigate wrote: »

Your friend got 2 weeks notice. That's fair.
Even within 2 years they could easily dismiss her with no redundancy, but it is better to get rid of underperforming employees sooner rather than later.
There's no point telling her she's underperforming and has to improve, when the fact is there are plenty of jobseekers out there and they'll probably hire a better person for the job.

Agreed , this is the real big world
She got 2 weeks notice and a valid reason
Unfortunately she wasn't good enough to perform the duties of the role in the employers eyes

Whilst training may have helped . Management obviously decided a replacement is the best course of action

She will find another job
Obviously it's not nice to happen but unfortunately this is life
She will find another job and probably excel at that (who knows)

Wish her the best of luck

ButtersSuki

With less than a year (even by a day) she has no legal recourse. Best to just move on and put it behind her.

Senna

Kiith wrote: »

This may very well be all legal, but they had a really ****ty attitude to her, and i was royally pissed off when i heard about it :mad:

No employer fires a good employee, maybe she will take it as a learning experience and try harder in the next job.

bobbysands81

Have I stumbled across the IBEC forum on boards?

Senna

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Have I stumbled across the IBEC forum on boards?

Certainly not just some balance, it's always the big heartless employer and never the incompetent lazy employee.

Avatar MIA

An employer doesn't sack a good or even a barely performing employee, the hassle of rehiring and retraining is a complete pain in the hoop.

ZeroThreat

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Have I stumbled across the IBEC forum on boards?

Well, from what I've seen over the time I'm been here, especially on business sections of this site, the user base seems to be overwhelmingly economically right-wing neo-liberal globalist in outlook while socially extreme lefty liberal, right-on anything goes, kinda like the flim flam twitterati tory-boy we have leading the country right now.

Funny how?

People automatucally saying that the employee is at fault is typical irish begrudgery.

Yea not much come back since she is there under a year.

Don't know if it's an multinational company or smaller company but maybe they felt they were paying your friend to much money for the role, splitting her role across other members in the team as not quite as busy, really only ever planned to keep somore on for the 12 months.

Companies are *****!

marcus001

It might help to know what kind of job it was.

That would give us some insight. I've heard of a certain major supermarket that gets rid of their staff after a year because they get 40c extra an hour after a year regardless of performance. That's what I initially suspected this was when I clicked on.

GarIT

Kiith wrote: »

Does being an employee for more than a year give you more rights than if you were there less than a year?

I think this is the most important question here. If you are employed for less than one year you can be sacked for any reason (except for discrimination) without notice or any disciplinary procedure. The things they can't sack you for are age, gender, race, marital status, being a traveller, being pregnant, religion, sexual orientation or disability.

After one year they can't sack you without a verbal warning, a written warning (on a separate occasion) and then the issue has to occur a 3rd time to be sacked. The only thing that can bypass this is anything that breaks the law or could otherwise be considered gross misconduct.

beauf

Senna wrote: »

Certainly not just some balance, it's always the big heartless employer and never the incompetent lazy employee.

If you sack someone one day before a year with no previous indication of problems. Then its pretty obvious what the employer is doing. If it quacks like a duck, its usually a duck.

beauf

marcus001 wrote: »

It might help to know what kind of job it was.

That would give us some insight. I've heard of a certain major supermarket that gets rid of their staff after a year because they get 40c extra an hour after a year regardless of performance. That's what I initially suspected this was when I clicked on.

Yup used to be common.

beauf

Kiith wrote: »

...This may very well be all legal, but they had a really ****ty attitude to her, and i was royally pissed off when i heard about it :mad:

I imagine they pull similar tricks at all levels. Best to be out of there.

Avatar MIA

beauf wrote: »

Yup used to be common.

That would only save approx €750 per annum, that's not going to cover training, learning curve inefficiencies.

We've moved firmly away from an IBEC tread to full on comrade mode :pac:

beauf

Avatar MIA wrote: »

That would only save approx €750 per annum, that's not going to cover training, learning curve inefficiencies.

We've moved firmly away from an IBEC tread to full on comrade mode :pac:

Regardless. They still do it. Look at the experience and training lost after almost a year. If there was a problem they don't mention it for 11 months. its not credible.

Companies make mistakes. Apple sacked Steve's Jobs and then nearly went broke chasing market share.

Its not about politics. its about doing something stupid.

Hoboo

Kiith wrote: »

So a friend of mine was let go on Monday, with no notice and 1 days prior to her being there a year (she got two weeks notice, so the two weeks and the time she's been there is 1 day short of a year). She was a full time employee, and not a contractor. They told that her performance wasn't up to high enough standards, even though she was never told there was any issues.

If someone is being let go for performance issues, does the company not have to show that there were problems, or at least that it was raised with the employee before they were terminated?

She talked to a solicitor friend who said that because she hadn't been there a year, she had very little recourse. Does being an employee for more than a year give you more rights than if you were there less than a year?

This may very well be all legal, but they had a really ****ty attitude to her, and i was royally pissed off when i heard about it :mad:

I'd need to see the contract. Minimum notice for 13 weeks to 2 years service is a week, contract my provide for longer.

Regarding reason for termination, performance, it is required for the employer to notify the employee of shortcomings, and agree on a plan to improve. It may be considered unfair to not do so. 12 months is usually the minimum employment duration before an unfair dismissal case is valid, but ONLY if fair procedure has been followed, that's the important part which is set out in The Unfair Dismissals Act. If they didn't make your friend aware, and offer support/training, the 12 months rule, depending on the facts, could be irrelevant.

Get your friend to contact workplacerelations.ie, fill out the form, they'll advise accordingly.

Spider Web

Funny how? wrote: »

People automatucally saying that the employee is at fault is typical irish begrudgery.

Yea not much come back since she is there under a year.

Don't know if it's an multinational company or smaller company but maybe they felt they were paying your friend to much money for the role, splitting her role across other members in the team as not quite as busy, really only ever planned to keep somore on for the 12 months.

Companies are *****!

Begrudgery is jealousy. Absolutely nothing unreasonable about concluding that she is at fault, seeing as she more than likely is.
I have been unfairly treated by a company in the past but jeez that hardly means companies plural are *****.

Not that it is an easy situation for her - hope she finds something soon.

Avatar MIA

beauf wrote: »

Regardless. If there was a problem they don't mention it for 11 months. its not credible.

Blame the system, the company is made up of humans, and even management aren't perfect :pac: and they may review employees at 11 months, hoping they'll improve, but not going to risk it and leave the time tick over past 12 months, when it becomes a FAR bigger problem.

marcus001

beauf wrote: »

Regardless. They still do it. Look at the experience and training lost after almost a year. If there was a problem they don't mention it for 11 months. its not credible.

Companies make mistakes. Apple sacked Steve's Jobs and then nearly went broke chasing market share.

Its not about politics. its about doing something stupid.

Well in this particular job the learning curve would probably last about 2-3 weeks.

davo10

Op, you have to have one year of service before you are protected by the Unfair Dismissals Act. Also, probation can extend to up to one year so your friend could have been let go during his/her probationary period.

He/she could take a case to the Workplace Relations but there are a couple of points to consider, the ruling would be non binding as this is not a court, he/she may then have to go on to the District Court to make the employer abide by the ruling.

He/she would have to consider the implications on future employment if the job is in a sector where word gets around. Also, as others have posted, situations like this rarely come out of the blue, the fact that the termination came within the one year time frame suggests the employer knows what they are doing and that they have an issue with your friend's standard of work.

Unfortunately, it may be best for your friend to move on and put this down to experience.

bucketybuck

beauf wrote: »

Then its pretty obvious what the employer is doing. If it quacks like a duck, its usually a duck.

But in terms of the OP and the question asked, so what if it is a duck?

beauf wrote: »

If there was a problem they don't mention it for 11 months. its not credible.

But its also not credible that a company actively gets rid of good staff just because they are approaching one year with the company, hiring new staff and trying to maintain a decent workforce is a real goddamn pain in the hole.

I'm sure there is an exception that proves the rule and there is some ****ty company that thinks letting good staff go is a smart move, but in the main it probably would only happen in two instances. Where the workforce is untrained and the company can replace one employee with another without any loss of productivity. Or where the employee is no good and the company feels it is better in the long term to get rid sooner rather than later.

This could be a really shitty company. Its very possible. Its also completely credible that it was a ****ty employee who just isn't telling their friend the full story.

beauf

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Blame the system, the company is made up of humans, and even management aren't perfect :pac: and they may review employees at 11 months, hoping they'll improve, but not going to risk it and leave the time tick over past 12 months, when it becomes a FAR bigger problem.

They haven't allowed any time to improve so that's just nonsense. The absence of any process and the accuracy of the timing excludes any alternative.

beauf

bucketybuck wrote: »

But its also not credible that a company actively gets rid of good staff.. ...

Of course it is. Lots have places have churn for some ridiculous misguided reason. Some companies are known for it.

dudara

In the absence of any information on your friend's performance etc, the best thing to do is contact the Workplace Relations Commission. They can advise

davo10

beauf wrote: »

They haven't allowed any time to improve so that's just nonsense. The absence of any process and the accuracy of the timing excludes any alternative.

I suspect you are basing this on a Labour Court case about 10 years ago when a Hotel events manager was sacked after a couple of weeks, the Labour court found that a couple of weeks was not enough time for the employer to conclude that the employee was not up to the job. In this case though, eleven months is a long period to assess whether an employee is good at their job.

beauf

bucketybuck wrote: »

.... Its also completely credible that it was a ****ty employee who just isn't telling their friend the full story.

Everything you hear or read could be fabricated. You for example could have posted all the comments in this thread including mine. It could be a completely false thread.

beauf

davo10 wrote: »

I suspect you are basing this on a Labour Court case about 10 years ago when a Hotel events manager was sacked after a couple of weeks, the Labour court found that a couple of weeks was not enough time for the employer to conclude that the employee was not up to the job. In this case though, eleven months is a long period to assess whether an employee is good at their job.

No it's not credible that you would let someone work for 11 months doing the job badly with no comment. Then claim it's efficiency to let them go. You've had 11 months of inefficiency.

beauf

I think if people suggest there is something missing from the story, that implies that there is only one conclusion without some new information.

Hence its a duck.

davo10

beauf wrote: »

No it's not credible that you would let someone work for 11 months doing the job badly with no comment. Then claim it's efficiency to let them go. You've had 11 months of inefficiency.

None of us really know what the full story here is, I know if was me telling my friend about it, I'd be inclined to go heavy on my employer and light on my shortcomings.

But in respect to your point, you can argue about the unfairness of the dismissal, the timing, the lack of opportunity to improve etc. You can't argue though that the length of service is less than a year and that the UDA will apply. Yes the op's friend can bring a case to the WPR but the employer is just going to trash him/her and they can then thumb their nose at the ruling. Then it's off to the District court for another trashing.

I get your point about the unfairness of it all, maybe it is, but again, you don't let good employees go in this manner. Eleven months is a good long time to show what you can do, if it's not working out, then the time to let him/her go was before the one year mark.

looksee

I know of a situation where a firm said it was closing and let two managers go along with all the staff - both were just within a year of starting. They left and the firm never actually got round to closing, and all the factory floor staff stayed on. There had not been any indication of issues with the managers' performance in spite of the fact that it was a family firm that did not really quite know which of the family was in charge.

seamus

bucketybuck wrote: »

But its also not credible that a company actively gets rid of good staff just because they are approaching one year with the company, hiring new staff and trying to maintain a decent workforce is a real goddamn pain in the hole.

It's not a pain in the hole if it's easy work and you have a well polished induction process anyway.

Large fast food chains are one example. They hire massive amounts of people, so they have a massive induction and training machine running all of the time. So the expense/hassle of hiring new staff to them is minimal. Churn is constant anyway, the average employment time of staff is measured in months and the time from hiring to working is a couple of weeks.

So if someone approaches the year mark and they let them go, it makes no odds to them. They have 50 new people coming in the door next week who'll be working at 90% efficiency by the end of the month.

There are many companies who would far rather a high-churn workforce (as whos business model suits it) above having an experienced one.

Even for smaller companies, if you're hiring someone to do general dogsbody work, then there's little or no hassle in hiring a new person. You bring the new guy in, show him where the coffee machine is to make peoples' coffees and the rest he'll have figured out in two weeks.

In the OP's case, the friend will just have to move on, live and learn. Thankfully the economy is doing well, so they shouldn't have much trouble finding new work.

begbysback

This is why fast food is getting slower, and nobody seems able to make a decent cappuccino...

beauf

begbysback wrote: »

This is why fast food is getting slower, and nobody seems able to make a decent cappuccino...

Apparently it takes 11 months and 10,000 cups to realise someone can't make a coffee.

... And you are going to drink 10,000 bad coffees without mentioning it...

Avatar MIA

beauf wrote: »

Apparently it takes 11 months and 10,000 cups to realise someone can't make a coffee.

... And you are going to drink 10,000 bad coffees without mentioning it...

I don't think you've figured out how the coffee industry works, you don't make the coffee for your employer :pac:

It's simple, shocking as it may sound, there really are shít employees out there and management possibly doesn't spend as much time in micro managing as some would like. I'd say the number of industries that have it as a policy to churn staff (as one person put it) would be absolutely tiny, especially to make a saving of about €800 per year.

Separately, if you're doing a job that a randomer can do to 90% efficiency within a month, that's not a career, that's student job.

bucketybuck

seamus wrote: »

It's not a pain in the hole if it's easy work and you have a well polished induction process anyway.

Yes, I already said that, that it can happen where the workforce is untrained and the company can replace one employee with another without any loss of productivity. Worth noting though that if that were the case then such turnover would be very obvious and should not have been any shock to the lady mentioned in the OP.

Pertinent info here would be what type of job or industry the lady worked in and if she was the only person let go? If the company regularly gets rid of staff then she should have seen it coming but unfortunately there is little she can do. If the turnover there was actually quite low, if all her peers are still there working away, then self reflection might be in order.

daheff

davo10 wrote: »

Unfortunately, it may be best for your friend to move on and put this down to experience.

Not best for employees all round. If people just sit back and take this kind of thing then it will be come more common (like zero contract hours). Its not in anybody's interest (including companies) to have staff treated like this.


If there is a problem with somebodys performance, then a talk should happen with the employee to see what is causing the issue. Try to resolve the issue.

Act like grown ups....not penny pinching misers.

beauf

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I don't think you've figured out how the coffee industry works, you don't make the coffee for your employer :pac:

It's simple, shocking as it may sound, there really are shít employees out there and management possibly doesn't spend as much time in micro managing as some would like. I'd say the number of industries that have it as a policy to churn staff (as one person put it) would be absolutely tiny, especially to make a saving of about €800 per year.

Separately, if you're doing a job that a randomer can do to 90% efficiency within a month, that's not a career, that's student job.

.. You're basically saying it definitely doesn't happen except where it does...

.. More u turns than politician a week after being elected... .

Avatar MIA

beauf wrote: »

.. You're basically saying it definitely doesn't happen except where it does...

.. More u turns than politician a week after being elected... .

Not at all, but I can't help your fantasies.

I'm not personally aware of the practice and it doesn't make sense, but some on this thread have said they have, and I've no detailed information to go on to contradict them. But I can surmise that, taking their contributions into account, that the practice would be tiny.

beauf

bucketybuck wrote: »

Yes, I already said that, that it can happen where the workforce is untrained and the company can replace one employee with another without any loss of productivity. Worth noting though that if that were the case then such turnover would be very obvious and should not have been any shock to the lady mentioned in the OP.

Pertinent info here would be what type of job or industry the lady worked in and if she was the only person let go? If the company regularly gets rid of staff then she should have seen it coming but unfortunately there is little she can do. If the turnover there was actually quite low, if all her peers are still there working away, then self reflection might be in order.

Well this is it entirely. Just as people here are oblivious to companies that are known for this, people can often be oblivious to personality clashes or office politics. May even be a bean counters decision.

Hoboo

There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the The Unfair Dismissals Act in this thread.

It's correct to say the Act only applies to employees after 12 months. However correct procedure (in this case regarding performance) must be followed. In this case it was not, therefore the UDA applies.

davo10

Hoboo wrote: »

There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the The Unfair Dismissals Act in this thread.

It's correct to say the Act only applies to employees after 12 months. However correct procedure (in this case regarding performance) must be followed. In this case it was not, therefore the UDA applies.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

Service

Normally you must have at least 12 months' continuous service with your employer in order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. However there are important exceptions to this general rule. If you have less than 12 months' continuous service you may bring a claim for unfair dismissal if you are dismissed for:

Trade union membership or activity
Pregnancy, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected with pregnancy or birth
Availing of rights granted by the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004, the Adoptive Leave Acts 1995 and 2005, the Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016 the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, the Parental Leave Acts 1998 and 2006 and the Carer's Leave Act 2001
Making a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014
Note: employment equality legislation prohibits dismissal based on any of the following 9 grounds for discrimination: gender, civil status, family status, age, disability, religious belief, race, sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community. So, for example, if you have been employed for less than a year you may not be able to bring a claim under the unfair dismissals legislation, but you may be able make a complaint of discriminatory dismissal - see 'How to apply' below.

In general, the continuity of an employee's employment is only broken by the dismissal of the employee by the employer or the termination of the employment by the employee.

Hoboo

Don't know wtf I'm mixing that up with. Time to brush up! Was sure there was a section on competence and fair procedure pre 12 months.

marcus001

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I don't think you've figured out how the coffee industry works, you don't make the coffee for your employer :pac:

It's simple, shocking as it may sound, there really are shít employees out there and management possibly doesn't spend as much time in micro managing as some would like. I'd say the number of industries that have it as a policy to churn staff (as one person put it) would be absolutely tiny, especially to make a saving of about €800 per year.

Separately, if you're doing a job that a randomer can do to 90% efficiency within a month, that's not a career, that's student job.

Its not always about saving 800 a year its about beating your competitors. Companies are usually as ruthless as their own market environment.

Avatar MIA

marcus001 wrote: »

Its not always about saving 800 a year its about beating your competitors. Companies are usually as ruthless as their own market environment.

Eh, how is a high staff turnover a competitive advantage?

seamus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Eh, how is a high staff turnover a competitive advantage?

You can quickly scale your workforce to meet demands.

In a downturn you can shed staff quickly to stay afloat. In a boom you have the resources and processes to quickly train new staff and to handle the naturally high turnover that comes with a buoyant economy.

Where the work may be seasonal, you can also expand and contract your workforce quickly.

In many companies, the most resource-intensive part of hiring new staff is getting them acquainted with processes & procedure - usually because these things aren't written down on paper and have to be communicated from staff who possess the knowledge. If you've properly prepped your company and documented absolutely everything, then anyone can be given a manual and a week's induction to get them 90% of the way there.