[Closed] Wife's employer wants her out

I believe unless her contract of employment states a shorter probation term they can just show her the door, they don’t really need a reason within the first two years.

Some people are cowards, rather than admit they’re going broke and need to make some cuts, they’ll make up some BS reason, which is really shit when it knocks the confidence of the employee.

By all means dig out the contract, it is states a shorter probation period then, you can fight it on the basis of performance pretty easily - few employers ever lay out exactly what you’re meant to do, so how can they claim you’re not doing it? But it’s time to polish up the CV and start looking, because it’ll only get worse.

Ask for 2 months and she will leave tomorrow without mentioning constructive dismissal 😉

Time to get out before the cash runs out

Probation doesn’t really matter if it’s still within 2 yrs.        Barring sex, race, disability etc they can terminate with the contracted notice period.

Did anyone else get a similar letter?  I assume this is not the normal was of communicating at that company?

Does she recognise the performance issues described?  Is the performance of her role anyway linked to the issues that are causing the business to struggle?

When she took a pay cut did she reduce hours? Or has the difference been accruing?

How long will it take to find another job with similar pay?

Are there any restricted covenants preventing working for competitors?

She's got zero rights and unless there might be a chance of sexual discrimination no rights to any payment. Best chance is to be upfront. If they want her out then say she'll make that easy in exchange for a payout. If they are lazy and incompetent then they might take this offer.

I now hear that the HR lady isn’t in tomorrow so I’ve suggested she try to insist on her presence and also that 1 day notice of this meeting doesn’t give her enough time to prepare.  But yeah she’ll surely have to leave so it’s negotiating an optimal leaving deal that’s the aim - maybe having HR there will help but boss will aim to pay minimum no doubt.

1 days notice of a performance issue is very bad practice if it's the first time it's been mentioned and mentioned dismissal.

With the length of service though it doesn't really matter, even if she was made redundant, the statutory minimum would be a weeks extra wages at best.

I'd suggest she starts looking elsewhere immediately, whilst slowing the process down by arguing against the performance issue angle, by appeal, or filing a formal grievance...

But ultimately it sounds like she's gonna have to get a new job, so get the CV polished up and start looking.

Can she join a union and take a member with her to the meeting?

Failing that record it. If she knows she is going, make it as difficult as possible.

Upto her if she tells them she's recording it.

My friend secretly recorded a performance meeting and inappropriate comments were made. He's just agreeing to an out of court settlement.

I guess it all depends on how you want to play it.

Pretty sure that although they can show her the door with little reason due to length of service being less than two years, if they want to dress it up as a performance issue, she should have been made aware of the issue and support being put in place (coaching/retraining) to address the issue.  If that has not helped then it would progress to disciplinary.

So as above, it might be good to buy some time and insist on HR being there, and go into the meeting stating that if they want her out she will go for X months, this would be a clean break without any recourse against the company for dressing it up as a performance issue.

Pretty sure that although they can show her the door with little reason due to length of service being less than two years, if they want to dress it up as a performance issue, she should have been made aware of the issue and support being put in place (coaching/retraining) to address the issue.  If that has not helped then it would progress to disciplinary.

You are are kind of jumping the gun a bit there.  We haven’t seen the letter she got - I assumed it was the start of exactly that sort of performance improvement process.  Personally we do an informal chat first followed by a letter as confirmation of that chat, with the agreed steps.  I’d say we have about a 1:1:1 ratio of improvement works; the process stimulates them to move on (at no cost to the company); there is no improvement and the company makes the decision for them (but again at no cost).

I now hear that the HR lady isn’t in tomorrow so I’ve suggested she try to insist on her presence and also that 1 day notice of this meeting doesn’t give her enough time to prepare.  But yeah she’ll surely have to leave so it’s negotiating an optimal leaving deal that’s the aim – maybe having HR there will help but boss will aim to pay minimum no doubt.

The company pay the HR person's salary too.  Whatever pretence HR might give about trying to help your wife, they will be doing what the company wants, not trying to get her the best pay out.

Performance improvement and redundancy are two different issues - mix the two and they're exposing themselves to unfair dismissal claims for inappropriate process. Maybe the employee wants to keep the role open to offer it to someone else?  That said, less than 2 years service and there's zero / minimal entitlement to redundancy. Either way, start looking for another job and just be open with them / see if you can negotiate a bit more money for minimum hassle. I'm not sure whether joining a union is going to be much help unless there are other issues.

Time to go off sick with stress.

Sick is an option, but check sick pay benefits.

My wife was in a similar situation, been there just over a year, but they suddenly started doing similar to the OP. They were known for getting rid of people without notice.  She's done a law degree and basically got them over the process, as she had had good PDR's and no issues. She also had access to her records, as they weren't good on file security so could see what they were up to.

She went on sick, but when they came back, after just 3 days they disciplined her. That was wrong as they had not given her time to settle back in and had made some very minor easily correctable error. So she wrote a grievance letter, outlining a few bits of law (also spoke to the CAB and union) and they crumbled and offered her a settlement which was about 6 months salary.  This isn't the norm - you'd be normally lucky to get away with a month's pay, as redundancy is a week per year, so she might get 6 weeks if she goes for redundancy.

She can make their life awkward by requesting to know what the performance issues are.  Also check sick pay entitlement, as it might not be worth it is you only get SSP.

she's going whatever happens, just get the best deal you can. make it easy but not cheap. i'd go in there with a third party just so she has a witness to what is being said, without HR is probably advantageous in my view. if the boss has cooked this up by him/herself he's an idiot, if the HR person has advised then they're shit at their job.

i'd just go in, say, look we all know times are difficult, let's come to an arrangement where you give me a decent reference and some cash and i'll clear my desk now.

I now hear that the HR lady isn’t in tomorrow so I’ve suggested she try to insist on her presence

Who knows ... it really depends on her boss and their motivation.

From experience this can be simply HR telling a manager in different parts to pick X people who have been under 2 yrs...

Understanding the bosses motivation without HR present might even be beneficial?

So, she's leaving. From the context and the letter, that is definitely the ultimate outcome. One way or another.

As others have stated, getting out with any kind of settlement is far from nailed on based on length of service, but might be possible based on any breaches of employment law that occurs along the way with the process, but no more than potential possibility based on "getting them" for something.

So, with money quite possibly not a factor, if it was me, I'd be concerned mostly about the terms of the exit - an agreed departure (even with no cash element) is going to be better than a dismissal, not only for everyone's stress levels, but crucially for the future, and the main thing I might be focused on would be an agreed reference:

So, Mrs Shark, why did you leave your last role?

I was dismissed for performance issues, but it was a stitch up, let me tell you a long, complicated story about what happened..

or

I was made redundant due to problems with the business, here's a glowing reference from them..

I know which answer I'd want to be able to give in interview.

I was made redundant due to problems with the business, here’s a glowing reference from them..

Don't expect a glowing reference.  In our industry at least there is no such thing anymore.  Company references are very bland, and really only exist to disclose things that are deemed to be legally necessary (e.g. dismissed for performance issues). The absence of 'dismissed for performance issues' will be enough.

You seem to be hitting Def Con One very quickly with this.  HR put lines like "this may lead to action being taken, which could include dismissal" to cover themselves from a legal point of view if that is in fact the outcome further down the line, even for quite minor stuff.  Then it can't be argued that they didn't give proper warning.

It's better than the text I got on the last day of my holiday from my boss a couple of years ago to let me know that he didn't think it was working out, so don't bother coming back after a year with them.

I really can't stand cowardly companies who don't value basic communication.

Well she's now asked to see if redundancy is an option but boss isn't interested in that.  So I've got her to ask for time to deal with the issues raised - the letter says she's performing fine for most of her role but just mentions certain areas of dissatisfaction so seems harsh to push someone out for that.  Maybe wording is just to standard legal stuff as hels says so maybe there's a chance to deal with things - would be nice for a bit more time for her to find a new job at least.  They're not paying her that much so hard to imagine getting a better replacement I think - she's an accountant so there's lots about but she puts up with the lower pay as employer has been flexible about hours which helps a lot with our son.

Well told she's got to go but agreed she would resign and not have to work her notice.  Put in her letter that she was leaving due to the company's financial situation.

Well probably the best situation though if cashfolw is an issue with them don't be happy until it's in the bank!

Don’t expect a glowing reference.  In our industry at least there is no such thing anymore.  Company references are very bland, and really only exist to disclose things that are deemed to be legally necessary (e.g. dismissed for performance issues). The absence of ‘dismissed for performance issues’ will be enough.

Yes and no ...

What employers put in writing is different.... this is second hand but at OH's school they asked previous school for a reference for a new teacher and simply got an email "call us"

Yup SteveXTC has it pretty much references involve "Yes they worked for us." they are very unlikely to mention performance issues.

Well told she’s got to go but agreed she would resign and not have to work her notice.  Put in her letter that she was leaving due to the company’s financial situation.

Leaving due to financial situation = redundancy, surely?

But if she's happy with the situation and the reference is OK, prob not worth any more of her time.

Leaving due to financial situation = redundancy, surely?

Redundancy means not needed not "can't afford it", which is the case here. Either way redundancy is not worth establishing if she has worked less than 2 years and hence no money due.

 Don’t expect a glowing reference. In our industry at least there is no such thing anymore. Company references are very bland

Not always ime, granted this might vary by industry, but it also might depend on what leverage you have, and that might simply be convenience and timing - for instance if the company has a rigorous multi-stage disciplinary process that would mean that it could take six months to definitively exit someone by the time appeals etc. are factored in (although you can dismiss prior to an appeal, with the risk of re-appointing and paying backpay if the appeal succeeds).

So you can have an "off the record" conversation that goes something like "I know i'm going, you know I'm going, but it's going to take 6 months of process during which time you'll still be paying me. How about I go now, you pay me three months worth and agree this reference which I've prepared and I'll go today, sign a non-disclosure and everyone can move on." Bearing in mind the amount of time, effort and cost that can go into taking someone down a disciplinary route, on top of the continued salary, this can be, IME, quite an attractive option for all parties. Maybe the employer plays hard ball and knocks the money down, but you still get an agreed exit, an agreed reference and not a performance related dismissal on your record.

but if you can't afford it, you cut the staff by deciding which functions you can do without / bundling other functions together and as a result making positions redundant. Not people; you can't just decide to get rid of someone because they are eg: a high earner.

Although obviously that's what really happens, they then manipulate the facts to make it so and offer compromise agreements to not create a problem.

But as you say, not relevant here as <2 years and also being (relatively) happy with the arrangement - but I'm asking because I suspect when Brexit bites in 6 months time, I might be that person too.

She shouldn't resign. That will be considered leaving voluntarily. What if she then needs to sign on for benefits? She likely will not be allowed to.

Wouldn't think about her claiming benefits when I'm working.  Not sure how easy it is for a potential employer to find out but losing a job for poor performance is unlikely to help prospects I'm sure.

Seems to me that the owner will do her role for the moment but will hope to replace her later so redundancy could cause problems with that.

She would be entitled to 26 weeks contribution benefits jsa etc regardless of partners earnings but she wouldnt be entitled straight away if she left voluntary. Check the. Gov website to see if your area has gone live with universal credits if it's something you need.

Make sure you get everything in writing. I'd still consider speaking to cab about constructive dismissal.

Also, don't resign, make it difficult for them, don't give them an easy route.

Good luck

Bearing in mind the amount of time, effort and cost that can go into taking someone down a disciplinary route, on top of the continued salary, this can be, IME, quite an attractive option for all parties.

A mate went through a process of getting shot of people not up to the task, before any conversation with the employee legal and hr would work out a figure. I think most took the cash after a quick think about it. It's probably the best option in those circumstances

Sounds like a bad day out OP.

is she going to be paid for her notice period?

Sadly, thanks to the 2 year rule (IDS behind that I wonder?) there wasn’t much she could do.

Hope she finds something soon.

Yes paid for a month then holiday already planned after that so maybe she can get something sorted for her return.  Not a big deal for us financially so wouldn't think of claiming benefits.

Not a bad result all things considered then, they could have just said ‘bye’ I think.