First In, First Out?

[Cork Boss]

Hi, long time lurker.

I own a small business, opened about 18 months ago.

Business has been good, and 4 months ago took on my 5th employee. I knew I was taking a little risk, but business was expanding month on month, and I felt there was plenty more business to attract. (I'm happy with this persons performance so far.)

This judgement that there was more business to attract has proved correct however the business attracted is not moving through my production pipeline quickly enough. So although I have plenty of incoming leads and confirmed orders, sales are down from lack of efficiency.

This is (in my opinion) down to an existing employee who is cruising in 2nd gear, we're a small business and can't afford passengers, and his position is a central cog in the production process. It's hard for me to prove his lack of urgency, as he always 'looks busy' but is basically 'faffing around' pretending to be working on necessary designs etc...

So with increased overheads, yet reduced sales, it's starting to bite. If things don't improve soon, I'm going to have to reduce overheads i.e A salary. There is no logical reason why my sales shouldn't be increasing.

My question is that if I have to let someone go, does it have to be my latest recruit, or can I let the person I feel is slowing down my business?
I don't want to land in a tribunal, as he is a bit sure of himself and his 'workers rights'.
However if if I decide my business cannot sustain it's overheads then surely I can make this decision without fear of reproach?

Is the first in first out policy a legally binding one?

Advice appreciated.

 

[NHG]

First in First out policy is gone, but I'm not sure about any of the other legal stuff if someone else is going to take over that persons duties.

 

[WaterSprite]

In order to make someone legitimately redundant, you have to base your selection criteria on objective factors. This doesn't have to be FIFO, but does have to be objective. Merely letting someone go because you think they are a poor performer, but haven't said anything to them about it (officially) won't be good enough absent any other factors. If e.g. all the other employees have lots of other qualifications and experience and your poor performer doesn't, then that could be a criteria. All other objective factors being equal though, mere "poor performance" that hasn't been followed up on won't be enough.

I'd recommend dealing with the poor performance issue directly. You say that it's difficult to pin down as he always "looks busy" but there are many ways to try and improve this person's performance. You should set measurable goals and targets and objectively measure him against his peers. If indeed he is performing poorly, then put him on a performance plan and follow the relevant procedures until improvement or dismissal. In such a small company, I'd imagine you are familiar with the requirements of everybody's job and it should be no problem to you to see/prove if this one employee is actually performing poorly. I think this is the most honest and fairest way to go. With a bit of extra work on your part, you will be able to handle this in a fair and legal manner.

The employee is perfectly entitled to be aware of his workers' rights.

Sprite

 

[Purple]

In order to make someone legitimately redundant, you have to base your selection criteria on objective factors. This doesn't have to be FIFO, but does have to be objective. Merely letting someone go because you think they are a poor performer, but haven't said anything to them about it (officially) won't be good enough absent any other factors. If e.g. all the other employees have lots of other qualifications and experience and your poor performer doesn't, then that could be a criteria. All other objective factors being equal though, mere "poor performance" that hasn't been followed up on won't be enough.

I'd recommend dealing with the poor performance issue directly. You say that it's difficult to pin down as he always "looks busy" but there are many ways to try and improve this person's performance. You should set measurable goals and targets and objectively measure him against his peers. If indeed he is performing poorly, then put him on a performance plan and follow the relevant procedures until improvement or dismissal. In such a small company, I'd imagine you are familiar with the requirements of everybody's job and it should be no problem to you to see/prove if this one employee is actually performing poorly. I think this is the most honest and fairest way to go. With a bit of extra work on your part, you will be able to handle this in a fair and legal manner.

The employee is perfectly entitled to be aware of his workers' rights.

Sprite

Good advice.