Is anyone on here up-to-date with employment law? -- Lesley CBR600FW SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster) BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12 BONY#54P BOB#18 Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally
It's not me who needs it, but the future actions of another employee could have *serious* consequences on the future of the company should their threats to 'under-work', shall we say, as it would affect our bank balance, and therfore the future of the company. -- Lesley CBR600FW SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster) BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12 BONY#54P BOB#18 Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally
SP posted: Sounds like a candidate for a P45, stat. Deliberately acting against the best interests of one's employer must surely count as gross misconduct, which is acceptable grounds for summary dismissal. Evidence is key.
Why didn't you say? The removing cunts dept. Paging darsy[1] & DanL [1] the ultimately autolytic approach may be a bit too extreme for you
I was thinking about having a chat with one of the directors about this tomorrow, in order to put a stop to it, but I fear that this is going to be one heck of a minefield. It also possibly means losing the trust of someone, but I think the interests of the company that I work for are paramount - it could involve a lot of job losses if the threats are carried out. -- Lesley CBR600FW SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster) BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12 BONY#54P BOB#18 Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally
I would ask myself the following: 1. If your colleague's actions are brought to play, and chaos ensues, will it become apparent that you knew in advance and did nothing? 2. If your colleague's actions result in them being hauled in front of the directors they will of course squeal, and implicate everyone else who knew about it, implying some sort of solidarity. Would this be good for your career? 3. If your employer's business goes tits up, what value would the trust of the architect of their downfall be to you? 4. Would a quiet word at line manager level be more appropriate than going to the directors?
Be sure they're actually under-working, rather than working to their contract. I've been in situations where sticking to your contracted hours has been regarded as under working.
Dismissing someone on those grounds would certainly end up in a court of law and anyone trying it needs *very* good evidence to back up their claim. Imagine how pleased they'd be if you'd given them the original nod on this one and it cost them a few grand in legal fees.
The legal approach IIRC would be to rate their performance as unacceptable, then give them written warning of a need to improve within a defined period, or get the boot. Throw in a monthly review of their work with someone in a management role, and job done, it'll either right itself or play out.
Yes. Thankfully I work for an enlightened employee who expects over and above contract when necessary, but is happy with under contract at other times. My brother used to work for a company who openly said your contracted hours are 38 a week, but we expect at least an extra hour a day. He left.
