i've just had to sack someone

[Guineveretoo]

most probations have a clause which clearly states that the company can get rid of them at any time during this period with a weeks notice....

I thought that was common knowledge?

How do you know that this person was aware of that? It's only "common knowledge" to people who have worked in an organisation which has a probation period, and, in fact, what you describe is not a common probationary clause at all.

Because you know something, doesn't mean that others do, and employers/managers have a duty to ensure that their employees DO understand such things.

This thread was started by someone saying that they had sacked someone who had done nothing wrong!

 

[Iam]

if you have even the smallest bit of intelligence then you know you dont start skiving and fucking about until after your probation period ends...

Bingo.

 

[Thora]

can I propose a minutes silence for poor managers that put people out of work as and when they feel like it...

I know, I for one, feel for them extremely deeply....

(((managers)))

I especially feel for the caring ones, who only have their underlings best interests at heart.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Indeed, although this is not what the OP says, which is why I jumped in

If, however, she wasn't coping with the job, a decent employer would have asked why, and considered whether, for example, there was too much work, or there were conflicting priorities, or if it hadn't been made clear to her what her role was.

Coping? How do you mean?

 

[Bazza]

if she had stayed it would have been made things difficult for everyone else in the office here. the good of the many and all that

If someone doesn't fit in with a team, it could be a good reason to let them go. Getting a good working team isn't easy to do, however, it is very easy to disrupt.

 

[Guineveretoo]

so you would prefer it if everyione was a heartless bastard and just sacked people with no feeling of conscience?

nice... (mind you this is what happens in a lot of larger companies I guess)

if you have even the smallest bit of intelligence then you know you dont start skiving and fucking about until after your probation period ends...

Where is the suggestion that this person had been skiving or fucking about? So far, what we have heard is that she had an "attitude", that she was too busy, and that she wouldn't do extra duties, without any indication that she had been offered any help with workload, or explanation of the need to do extra duties.

The OP was possibly demonstrating that they were a "heartless bastard with no feeling of conscience" if they didn't offer this support and advice to someone who, after all, relies on them for their livelihood!

 

[chegrimandi]

(((managers)))

I especially feel for the caring ones, who only have their underlings best interests at heart.

yes I'm sure some faces on a bulletin board will really console someone thats just lost their job...

pathetic wankers.

oooo poor me, I just had to sack someone, oh no - I'm very unfortunate I am....

 

[Guineveretoo]

Coping? How do you mean?

I mean, because she said she was too busy when asked to do something which her manager clearly thought she should have had time to do. That doesn't sound like someone who is coping!

 

[rubbershoes]

Since you sacked her, you were, presumably, her manager. What did you do to explain the job and her responsibilities to her?

her job was to be my secretary. typing, phoning clients,filing, organising meetings etc. she's been a secretary for more than 20 years so knows what a secretary has to do. a few times i asked her to sort out some invoices that needed paying urgently but she said she was too busy. so i had to do them

well why shouldn't i? you may ask. we're all humans and who am i to tell her what to do. i earn the money to pay her wages. that does not give me the right to treat her like shit. but it does give me the right to give her perfectly reasonable requests for her to dso something that is part of her job and which any other secretary i've ever had would say fine, no problem to.#

what she was doing when she said no to my requests was not urgent. she just had a backlog of work, as we all do, and presumably felt that her clearing her backlog was more important than my time.

and as for not answering the phones, she was told at interview that this was something she had to do and she just didn't do it. she'd wait for someone else to do it. someone had had a word with her about it a couple of weeks ago but she didn't change

 

[Bazza]

No, but it does mean that you should have ensured she was clear about her role and responsibilities, and was given the opportunity to improve or to explain why she wasn't coping and was busy.

Okay, you have a moral rather than a legal obligation to do that, but you are certainly not going to build a reputation as a good employer if you sack someone for no reason and without following your own procedures.

In all fairness, on the basis of these posts, you don't really know what the OP is like.

For all you know, the attitude could have really stunk.

E2A: Like my point earlier, someone with a bad attitude can disrupt what would otherwise be an effective team. Seen it loads. Been there myself (with the bad attitude) and I'm just lucky my company stuck by me.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I'd like you to point out where the sacking was illegal....

And I would like you to point out where I said that the sacking was illegal!

Read my posts again

 

[pengaleng]

How do you know that this person was aware of that? It's only "common knowledge" to people who have worked in an organisation which has a probation period, and, in fact, what you describe is not a common probationary clause at all.

I think you'll find it is actually very common.

 

[Belushi]

We need to get the secretary on here for her side of the story.

 

[Guineveretoo]

In all fairness, on the basis of these posts, you don't really know what the OP is like.

For all you know, the attitude could have really stunk.

This is absolutely true - I am basing my rant on words on a screen, but that is all I have got to go on, and the OP stated that this person had done nothing wrong.

It now seems that, in fact, she had done stuff that was "wrong", so the question moves on to whether she was given the appropriate support to help her to improve and to avoid sacking her.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

This thread was started by someone saying that they had sacked someone who had done nothing wrong!

You keep banging on about that despite the fact that he elaborated on the situation...

 

[rubbershoes]

We need to get the secretary on here for her side of the story.

it may be thora

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think you'll find it is actually very common.

I don't doubt that it is common in certain fields, my point is that it is not "common knowledge".

I wouldn't have known the arrangements for probationary periods, if I started working somewhere, without being told. The length of a probationary period varies, too.

 

[Thora]

We need to get the secretary on here for her side of the story.

I don't want her here if she's got a bad attitude

 

[chegrimandi]

i earn the money to pay her wages.

you utter utter prick.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I mean, because she said she was too busy when asked to do something which her manager clearly thought she should have had time to do. That doesn't sound like someone who is coping!

That depends on how you're reading it. She could be just badly organised.

 

[Belushi]

it may be thora

Nah, I reckon thora would have stabbed him with a letter opener on her way out

 

[sojourner]

and as for not answering the phones, she was told at interview that this was something she had to do and she just didn't do it. she'd wait for someone else to do it. someone had had a word with her about it a couple of weeks ago but she didn't change

Okay, I was waiting for you to expand a little in the face of all the posts, and you are sounding like a bit of a twat now tbh

Someone 'having a word' about the phones should have been you, if she's your secretary. If she answers to you, the responsibility to be clear about her role was yours. Ditto clarification about the backlog of work should have been sorted out with clear communication about prioritising. She might have been performing a secretarial role for 20 years, but in a new organisation she may well not have known what was the highest priority work.

 

[Belushi]

I don't doubt that it is common in certain fields, my point is that it is not "common knowledge".

I wouldn't have known the arrangements for probationary periods, if I started working somewhere, without being told. The length of a probationary period varies, too.

It should be in your contract (not that anyone ever reads them properly!)

 

[bouncer_the_dog]

This is absolutely true - I am basing my rant on words on a screen, but that is all I have got to go on, and the OP stated that this person had done nothing wrong.

It now seems that, in fact, she had done stuff that was "wrong", so the question moves on to whether she was given the appropriate support to help her to improve and to avoid sacking her.

Why do you care so much? It's OK to sack people. Especially if they suck. Why waste money 'giving them support'.

 

[kyser_soze]

TBH I know exactly the type of person rubbershoes is talking about, and given what you've said I don't blame you - I've had the misfortune to work with people like this in the past.

If she can't handle the workload of being a PA/secretary she shouldn't be in the job, plain and simple. Stuff like covering reception over lunches and stuff...fuck that, there are 000s of people who are capable of understanding such things without them being explained, and if you're a secretary who can'r cope with the workload that comes with the job you shouldn't be doing it.

 

[pengaleng]

I love this thread, I'm gonna go sack my temp that spat in my bin this morning

 

[Guineveretoo]

her job was to be my secretary. typing, phoning clients,filing, organising meetings etc. she's been a secretary for more than 20 years so knows what a secretary has to do. a few times i asked her to sort out some invoices that needed paying urgently but she said she was too busy. so i had to do them

well why shouldn't i? you may ask. we're all humans and who am i to tell her what to do. i earn the money to pay her wages. that does not give me the right to treat her like shit. but it does give me the right to give her perfectly reasonable requests for her to dso something that is part of her job and which any other secretary i've ever had would say fine, no problem to.#

what she was doing when she said no to my requests was not urgent. she just had a backlog of work, as we all do, and presumably felt that her clearing her backlog was more important than my time.

and as for not answering the phones, she was told at interview that this was something she had to do and she just didn't do it. she'd wait for someone else to do it. someone had had a word with her about it a couple of weeks ago but she didn't change

So, how is this not having done anything wrong??

This is not about "attitude" at all, as far as I can tell. It's about someone who failed to prioritise or organise their work properly, and who refused a reasonable management instruction?

Having only been there for a few weeks, perhaps she was still trying to work to the new routines? This is particularly true if she had been in a different office environment for many years, and knew their procedures and systems really well, but didn't know others. Perhaps she was struggling to get stuff done, and misunderstood that the invoices were a priority, because they had been done by someone else in her last job?

 

[rubbershoes]

i thoight this thread would loiter unremarked on the dusty e & e forum before sliding off without a reply

show's how much i know

 

[Bazza]

It should be in your contract (not that anyone ever reads them properly!)

PAH. I know mine inside out. I know exactly when I'm breaching it.

 

[chegrimandi]

urban75 - where managers now proffer each other support on the hardships of sacking people...

you couldn't make it up.