Hello All,
I have recently joined a company as HR ,here is a case which the management gave me to solve .
We have an ex employee who is creating a lot of trouble to the management ,the employee joined in the month of july,2014 and was not given any confirmation letter he was been terminated due to non performance and dishonesty on may 2015 on immediate basis and his partial dues were cleared only rs 20000/- is reamaining , now he is claming for his leave salary and bonus for 11months as well as additional one month salary. The management has decided only to release his 20k which is pending the employee is hard to handle and argues a lot i have no idea what he was promised and what he has received as per the information given to me by his seniors only 20k is pending . Can anyone just suggest what has to be done to get rid of this problem .
Thanks.
From India, Mumbai
1I have recently joined a company as HR ,here is a case which the management gave me to solve .
We have an ex employee who is creating a lot of trouble to the management ,the employee joined in the month of july,2014 and was not given any confirmation letter he was been terminated due to non performance and dishonesty on may 2015 on immediate basis and his partial dues were cleared only rs 20000/- is reamaining , now he is claming for his leave salary and bonus for 11months as well as additional one month salary. The management has decided only to release his 20k which is pending the employee is hard to handle and argues a lot i have no idea what he was promised and what he has received as per the information given to me by his seniors only 20k is pending . Can anyone just suggest what has to be done to get rid of this problem .
Thanks.
From India, Mumbai
Check out what the offer letter says.
What dues have been paid and what is due?
Was the termination done in a documented manner or was it just an abrupt termination?
What are the components of FNF in respect of other employees who have been terminated?
Do not get pressurised by argumentative employee or over talkative employee.
Get your facts and figures right and deal with him firmly.
From India, Pune
What dues have been paid and what is due?
Was the termination done in a documented manner or was it just an abrupt termination?
What are the components of FNF in respect of other employees who have been terminated?
Do not get pressurised by argumentative employee or over talkative employee.
Get your facts and figures right and deal with him firmly.
From India, Pune
Sorry, Nathrao to differ with your views. Once the employer-employee relation is severed officially, no liability rests on the ex-employee. Once officially relieved of his duties the employee cannot be held responsible for the mistake of the management. The notice period pay can either be deemed to have been waived off or the erring executive responsible for mistake may be made to compensate. However, if the ex-employee prefers to deposit as a matter of generosity on his part, that can be appreciated, but cannot be enforced.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Further to what Nath Rao said,
1. Since no appointment letter was given, there are no specified terms to enforce. So you need to look at standard terms in your firm. Or you need to look at the standing orders.
2. If an employee was dismissed for dishonesty, there is no need for notice period. This will be in the standing orders. However, there must be documented fact of dishonesty. And preferably details of a domestic equiry.
3. If the employee was in probation then again there is no notice period (generally).
4. What was promised is immaterial now. For anything he claims due to him ask for proof that it was offered. Just say you don't care what anyone may have said. If he has it in writing you will consider it.
For the rest since you have not bothered to give us details, we can't comment.
From India, Mumbai
1. Since no appointment letter was given, there are no specified terms to enforce. So you need to look at standard terms in your firm. Or you need to look at the standing orders.
2. If an employee was dismissed for dishonesty, there is no need for notice period. This will be in the standing orders. However, there must be documented fact of dishonesty. And preferably details of a domestic equiry.
3. If the employee was in probation then again there is no notice period (generally).
4. What was promised is immaterial now. For anything he claims due to him ask for proof that it was offered. Just say you don't care what anyone may have said. If he has it in writing you will consider it.
For the rest since you have not bothered to give us details, we can't comment.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Shri Banerjee,
I don't subscribe to your views even to a little extent, as that is filled with more of presumptions, rather than based on visible facts in the description of the querist, as can very much be expected from a rational HR executive.
I am unable to understand, on what basis you have assumed that "no appointment letter was given" to the employee and "there are no specified terms" in that appointment letter, as I don't find any such mention in the post of the querist.
Further, your asumption that the employee was dismissed for dishonesty, also does not seem to be relevant, as the querist has nowhere mentioned that the employee was dismissed only after having the charge proved against him by observing due formalities of conducting disciplinary proceedings against him. While non performance can be understood, but the allegation of dishonesty cannot be taken as granted merely by making allegation against the employee. Dishonesty has to be proved beyong any doubt by conducting a formal domestic/ departmental inquiry by giving adequate opportunity to the employee to defend himself. So, unless proved, the employee cannot be treated as dishonest. I may reiterate that the querist has nowhere made any mention that he was dismissed or terminated only after proving the charge of dishonesty against the employee. So, there is no logic is assuming that he was definitely dishonest. It is also noteworthy that if the management finds itself unable to face the employee even after his termination, there is definitely a scope for assumtion that the management was wrong and would have acted irrationally somewhere in its action.
Still further, your assumption that "if the employee was in probation then again there is no notice period" also seems to be unfounded, as the querist has nowhere stated that no notice period was prescribed during probation period.
Furthermore, your assumption, "what was promised is immaterial now," also sounds irrational. That gives clear indication towards professing that the management can act irrationally by going back from its own promise. Such type of instance can only show deliberate damagement of the employer-employee relations, not rational management, which is supposed from the mangers at the helm of affais. The question arises, what forced the management to make a promise to a non-performer and dishonest the employee, if that was unable to fulfill its promise? Another question arise, was the management bound to make any promise of an immaterial nature to such an unwanted and dishonest employee?
To be frank, please don't mind, I rate your suggestion to be quite unethical of an HR executive, as has been found to be not founded on material facts of the case. Such type of measures to tackle any problem, can only result in to dustrust between the employee-employer; (2) enhance attrition rate leading to escalating the recruitment costs to an unimaginable level; and (3) deplete the productivity of not only the individual employees, but also the overall productivity of the organisation, as a whole.
From India, Delhi
I don't subscribe to your views even to a little extent, as that is filled with more of presumptions, rather than based on visible facts in the description of the querist, as can very much be expected from a rational HR executive.
I am unable to understand, on what basis you have assumed that "no appointment letter was given" to the employee and "there are no specified terms" in that appointment letter, as I don't find any such mention in the post of the querist.
Further, your asumption that the employee was dismissed for dishonesty, also does not seem to be relevant, as the querist has nowhere mentioned that the employee was dismissed only after having the charge proved against him by observing due formalities of conducting disciplinary proceedings against him. While non performance can be understood, but the allegation of dishonesty cannot be taken as granted merely by making allegation against the employee. Dishonesty has to be proved beyong any doubt by conducting a formal domestic/ departmental inquiry by giving adequate opportunity to the employee to defend himself. So, unless proved, the employee cannot be treated as dishonest. I may reiterate that the querist has nowhere made any mention that he was dismissed or terminated only after proving the charge of dishonesty against the employee. So, there is no logic is assuming that he was definitely dishonest. It is also noteworthy that if the management finds itself unable to face the employee even after his termination, there is definitely a scope for assumtion that the management was wrong and would have acted irrationally somewhere in its action.
Still further, your assumption that "if the employee was in probation then again there is no notice period" also seems to be unfounded, as the querist has nowhere stated that no notice period was prescribed during probation period.
Furthermore, your assumption, "what was promised is immaterial now," also sounds irrational. That gives clear indication towards professing that the management can act irrationally by going back from its own promise. Such type of instance can only show deliberate damagement of the employer-employee relations, not rational management, which is supposed from the mangers at the helm of affais. The question arises, what forced the management to make a promise to a non-performer and dishonest the employee, if that was unable to fulfill its promise? Another question arise, was the management bound to make any promise of an immaterial nature to such an unwanted and dishonest employee?
To be frank, please don't mind, I rate your suggestion to be quite unethical of an HR executive, as has been found to be not founded on material facts of the case. Such type of measures to tackle any problem, can only result in to dustrust between the employee-employer; (2) enhance attrition rate leading to escalating the recruitment costs to an unimaginable level; and (3) deplete the productivity of not only the individual employees, but also the overall productivity of the organisation, as a whole.
From India, Delhi
When pontifering its always a good idea to read the original post instead of thinking to great of your self. I am marking with "**" what the original poster said.
Hello All,
I have recently joined a company as HR ,here is a case which the management gave me to solve .
We have an ex employee who is creating a lot of trouble to the management ,the employee joined in the month of july,2014 and ****was not given any confirmation letter he was been terminated due to non performance and dishonesty ******** on may 2015 on immediate basis
So yes, he has stated not confirmed, so that means he was on probation
And terminated for dishonesty means he was dishonest. Which past of the English do you not understand ?
Yes I misread the pasty of appointment letter
From India, Mumbai
Hello All,
I have recently joined a company as HR ,here is a case which the management gave me to solve .
We have an ex employee who is creating a lot of trouble to the management ,the employee joined in the month of july,2014 and ****was not given any confirmation letter he was been terminated due to non performance and dishonesty ******** on may 2015 on immediate basis
So yes, he has stated not confirmed, so that means he was on probation
And terminated for dishonesty means he was dishonest. Which past of the English do you not understand ?
Yes I misread the pasty of appointment letter
From India, Mumbai
Dear Saswat Banerjee,
It is good, if you try to justify your points of view, provided that justification is based on some rational logic. A manager is not supposed to act on mere presumptions and to act arbitrarily, but has to make decisions on rational thinking about the reality of things. But, you have not tried to justify the basis of your presumptions. The members here expected to provide proper guidance to the querist members to solve their problems rationally, not on arbitrary manner. A manager's job is not merely to please his bosses at the cost of service of employees or by denying dues of employees. But, if that happens, the saying "peple leave managers, not the company" can hold good due to such type of managers, who prefer only to his bosses rather than keeping balance between the employer and the employee.
Needless to mention description of the author's post clearly indicates that the management has preferred to make a new entrant a scapegoat when they found themselves to be incapable to face the sacked employee. It is merely a case of emotional blackmailing of the new entrant by the employer. Now, it all depends upon him, whether to take a rational decision or to toe the line of his bosses, so that the ultimate blame rests only on the new executive.
From India, Delhi
It is good, if you try to justify your points of view, provided that justification is based on some rational logic. A manager is not supposed to act on mere presumptions and to act arbitrarily, but has to make decisions on rational thinking about the reality of things. But, you have not tried to justify the basis of your presumptions. The members here expected to provide proper guidance to the querist members to solve their problems rationally, not on arbitrary manner. A manager's job is not merely to please his bosses at the cost of service of employees or by denying dues of employees. But, if that happens, the saying "peple leave managers, not the company" can hold good due to such type of managers, who prefer only to his bosses rather than keeping balance between the employer and the employee.
Needless to mention description of the author's post clearly indicates that the management has preferred to make a new entrant a scapegoat when they found themselves to be incapable to face the sacked employee. It is merely a case of emotional blackmailing of the new entrant by the employer. Now, it all depends upon him, whether to take a rational decision or to toe the line of his bosses, so that the ultimate blame rests only on the new executive.
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Whether Employees Terminated For Misconduct Entitled To Payment Of Statutory Dues.docx
Amendment to Payment of Bonus Act 2015.jpg
Online payment of PF mandatory from 1.1.2016.pdf