Thank you all for your input, I know that some of you are astonished that such a situation can arise or that there is simply a procedural process that will remedy the matter completely. But it is more common that allot of you would think, especially in the private sector. I have a feeling that allot of respondents come from the Multi corporate or Public sector positions, where you cannot order a pencil without filling out a form. Private and SME business never fails to surprise me, its all about personalities. Procedures, meetings or the threat of legal action does not change people’s characters or attitudes, it merely puts them in abeyance until they can come at you again from another angle. I really like the Japanese method but very severe, I think the road I would choose to go down would be to organise formal complaints about the individual from other employees. Bring in the Union and then try to negotiate a reduced pay off on the basis of those complaints.
How to get rid of an employee
- Thread starter 90210
- Start date
Clubman "Note also that employees are not made redundant - jobs are."
Well said Clubman thought I heard that one before , it appears I did.
Clubman, nice to see you are taking advice from "Slash" as per the thread on "Redundancy on Maternity leave" back on the 20th.
Well said Clubman thought I heard that one before , it appears I did.
Clubman, nice to see you are taking advice from "Slash" as per the thread on "Redundancy on Maternity leave" back on the 20th.
There is still something fundamentally unfair with your 'organising' of complaints. Either the other employees have complaints, or they don't. The fact that you have organised these complaints may well weaken your case, if this ever came to a tribunal or court case. Your 'organising' of complaints is pretty mean. How would you like to be treated if some employees were complaining about your management skills?90210 said:
I wholeheartedly agree, RainyDay, it is most concerning that this employer is 'organising complaints' against an employee. Notwithstanding the fact that this behaviour it is illegal (and will have serious consequences for this employer if it is discovered), it is a cruel, shabby, disrespectful way to treat any human being.
In my view, the options this employer has in terms of dealing with this employee are:
1. formally meet with this employee and set out the 'people difficulties' that are so detrimental to the organisation. Allow the employee to respond. An open discussion could be a surprise to the employer. The root of the 'people difficulties' could be lack of motivation or boredom at work, domestic unhappiness, concerns about retirement, financial worries, or a range of other issues that could actually be resolved. In fact, just one meeting could allow both sides to see the other's view and both could then take steps to remedy, follow-up and review, etc.
2. if the employer is determined this person should go, then they will have to look at whether they are entitled to dismiss this person. There is scope in instances of gross misconduct, persistent sick leave, and in other circumstances where an employer may terminate a contract of employment. The employer should seek legal advice on the matter - but it would seem that this employer won't even consider this.
3. redundancy situations arise where the job is gone, and there is no alternative work matching the employee's skills. You might be interested to know, that many employees in Ireland each year take 'early retirement'. This is often in fact 'redundancy' situations. Would the employer not consider this option instead - that is 'offering an early retirement' package to this individual? Again - the redundancy situation must be genuine otherwise the employee could seek redress. I might have more information on this early retirement issue so if you PM me, I will forward this on to you.
I might also suggest to this employer, that since they are engaging in 'orchestrating complaint's' against this employee, they should be aware the employee has the right to view this information and could in fact challenge these 'complaints' through the courts.
On a final note, I think this is a sad reflection on this employer that following 30+ years service, they are subjecting an employee (any employee) to such poor treatment rather than managing the problem. Everyone in Ireland is entitled to fair procedure and the decision to 'organise complaints' is in direct contravention to this.
I feel very sorry for this employee. Irrepective of 'people difficulties' nobody deserves to be treated like this. Consider carefully how you will proceed and be aware the course of action you are advocating is against the law.
I am sure many people would be interested to hear how this turns out so perhaps you might post again here and let us know what happens.
In my view, the options this employer has in terms of dealing with this employee are:
1. formally meet with this employee and set out the 'people difficulties' that are so detrimental to the organisation. Allow the employee to respond. An open discussion could be a surprise to the employer. The root of the 'people difficulties' could be lack of motivation or boredom at work, domestic unhappiness, concerns about retirement, financial worries, or a range of other issues that could actually be resolved. In fact, just one meeting could allow both sides to see the other's view and both could then take steps to remedy, follow-up and review, etc.
2. if the employer is determined this person should go, then they will have to look at whether they are entitled to dismiss this person. There is scope in instances of gross misconduct, persistent sick leave, and in other circumstances where an employer may terminate a contract of employment. The employer should seek legal advice on the matter - but it would seem that this employer won't even consider this.
3. redundancy situations arise where the job is gone, and there is no alternative work matching the employee's skills. You might be interested to know, that many employees in Ireland each year take 'early retirement'. This is often in fact 'redundancy' situations. Would the employer not consider this option instead - that is 'offering an early retirement' package to this individual? Again - the redundancy situation must be genuine otherwise the employee could seek redress. I might have more information on this early retirement issue so if you PM me, I will forward this on to you.
I might also suggest to this employer, that since they are engaging in 'orchestrating complaint's' against this employee, they should be aware the employee has the right to view this information and could in fact challenge these 'complaints' through the courts.
On a final note, I think this is a sad reflection on this employer that following 30+ years service, they are subjecting an employee (any employee) to such poor treatment rather than managing the problem. Everyone in Ireland is entitled to fair procedure and the decision to 'organise complaints' is in direct contravention to this.
I feel very sorry for this employee. Irrepective of 'people difficulties' nobody deserves to be treated like this. Consider carefully how you will proceed and be aware the course of action you are advocating is against the law.
I am sure many people would be interested to hear how this turns out so perhaps you might post again here and let us know what happens.
Sorry guys but when I stated, "organise complaints" I jumped the gun a little. The employer has received numerous verbal complaints from other staff members over the last year regarding this individual. I really meant that they should start an organised collation of complaints to include written statements and specific incidents just to verify that they have genuinely come from the other employees. I did not mean that we would manufacture or invent stories, KGB style, that’s totally illegal.
I know the whole issue sounds dreadful but the individual concerned has lost the plot and refuses to take time out which was offered (3 months paid leave), 3 or 4 day a week or take on an assistant to help with the day to day. There is also a serious underlining issue here but I could prejudice the thread if I included it, but I would tarnish any employees record.
CMCR will PM you.
I know the whole issue sounds dreadful but the individual concerned has lost the plot and refuses to take time out which was offered (3 months paid leave), 3 or 4 day a week or take on an assistant to help with the day to day. There is also a serious underlining issue here but I could prejudice the thread if I included it, but I would tarnish any employees record.
CMCR will PM you.
90210 said:
90210, Have to say from reading the above you need proper advice on the approach taken here. I have been to the LRC / LC / EAT / Rights commissioners over the years in several dismissal cases (as the employer representative!). The guys who head up these organisations (People like Finbar Flood who was Chair of the Labour Court are brilliant.... they are generally very experienced professionals and know when people are a) trying it on and b) people are complying with legislation. They HATE to see managers coming in talking about warnings / complaints etc. if there is no supporting documentation.
They expect managers to manage their organisations in a fair and transparent manner and before you remove someone you need to have been able to demonstrate fairness over a period of time. Obviously things such as age / maternity etc are particularly sensitive. I would strongly advise that you get legal advice on this matter - if you are a member of IBEC of a similar organisatio engage them. Familiarise yourself and your co-managers with the legisaltion and ask youself "have we complied with this and and a fair way?"
You need to keep minutes of the meetings with the employee, allow the to have a friend or rep with them at the meeting. Explain to them the issues and whether it constitutes misconduct or gross misconduct and MOST IMPORTANTLY what the implications of their actions (or lack of...) are.
I know you say there is some other stuff there but from my unfortunate expereince of firing people I would assess the evidence provide to date as being totally insufficient and I would expect that the court would severely criticise management for not having documented case work done to date.
Is summary $$$$$$$$$..... happy days for the employee.
BTW in relation to Clubmans earlier response, the court very rarely opts to resinstate because one and probably both parties would see this as being unacceptable. So this gets taken into the equation when calculating $$$$$.
Roy
90210 said:
To be honest, the 'organised collation' sounds pretty unfair to me (and possibly to a tribunal too?). Either your normal process for handling employee complaints includes written complaints & collation of such complaints, or it doesn't. This employee doesn't deserve 'special treatment'.
Just FYI, I know of one case where the employee (senior white collar role) opted not to go through the tribunal route and instead took a high court case seeking re-instatement. This was simply a device to 'encourage' settlement, which the employer did, once the dirt started getting dished out on day 1 of the case.onekeano said:
ClubMan said:
The court in it's wisdom, knows that no employer in their right mind will want an employee who has won an unfair dismissal case against them back at work. Ergo this helps to focus the mind of the employer to settle.
Obviously in most cases the employee does not really want to return to a workplace where they have been unfairly dismissed but from a strategic viewpoint that should be the declared preference of the claimant.
Roy
Two years' pay (104 weeks) is the maximum compensation under the Act, but it could be less depending on the financial loss suffered. There is no compensation for stress suffered.There are 2 other remedies, reinstatement as mentioned above and re-engagement. These remedies are rarely ordered.
The relevant redress section of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997 is [broken link removed]
I recall a manager (in Dunnes?) getting the maximum a number of years ago.
Marion
The relevant redress section of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997 is [broken link removed]
I recall a manager (in Dunnes?) getting the maximum a number of years ago.
Marion
ajapale said:
Hi Aj,
What about Shinkwin vs Millet (see attached finding on page 4 of the attached) http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations
or the case of Citibank vs Ntoko (findings on page 5 of same document) I'm sure if you trawl through the document there are lots of other examples. Think there is a general misconception that it is only loss of earnings that the EAT compensate for. Not necessarily so,
Roy
Hi Onekeano
Very interesting cases. Thanks.
However, I notice that in both the claim for redress was under the Equality Acts, and not under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, because they alleged they were dismissed as a result of discrimination.
If discrimination were not an issue, would they have received less compensation if they claimed under the Unfair dismissals Act itself?
Also, would you have any idea how long it takes for a case to be heard following the referral of cases to the EAT and the Labour Court.
Thanks
Marion
Very interesting cases. Thanks.
However, I notice that in both the claim for redress was under the Equality Acts, and not under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, because they alleged they were dismissed as a result of discrimination.
If discrimination were not an issue, would they have received less compensation if they claimed under the Unfair dismissals Act itself?
Also, would you have any idea how long it takes for a case to be heard following the referral of cases to the EAT and the Labour Court.
Thanks
Marion
Hi Marion,
From this synopsis (2004 http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations )
it looks like pretty much every case qualifies under the equality act in some shape or form (an interesting Chinese take away story on page 7!!!)
Current leadtime for EAT or Labour court is 22-24 weeks, but you'd probably get a Rights Comissioner hearing before that and if not happy that can be appealed to the LC o EAT.
Roy
From this synopsis (2004 http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations )
it looks like pretty much every case qualifies under the equality act in some shape or form (an interesting Chinese take away story on page 7!!!)
Current leadtime for EAT or Labour court is 22-24 weeks, but you'd probably get a Rights Comissioner hearing before that and if not happy that can be appealed to the LC o EAT.
Roy
