I work for a small company (4 full time employees) and we have been rather quiet lately - not much work on. One of our employees is useless. He turns up for work late, goes home early, is argumentative, extremely lazy, lack of qualifications, has a criminal record....the list goes on. He is a nightmare. This is my fathers company and my brother and I both work for him. We want to make this other person redundant but are a bit unsure of how to proceed. I am really after some advice from those in the know. My brother and I don't have a defined role / employment contract but this chap does. Since he is the only one in the company with this role can we just make his role redundant?
Employment Law Advice
- Thread starter SoSolid
- Start date
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
That's a poor attitude - why not help him to improve?
If you really want to get rid of him, how long has he worked for the company and what performance management system does the company have in place?
I will point your attention to the part which says we are quiet and no longer have work for him. He is being paid very good money to drink tea and take cigarette breaks every 20 minutes. We have gone very quiet.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Then why mention the other things? If there is no work then it's simple - no need to consider the other aspects.
Personally, I'd be look at why there is no work, not how to fire people. Sounds like your father or his sons aren't doing their jobs properly, no this chap.
What a joke. There is no work that this man can do for us. He has no qualifications, he was performing a certain role within our company which is no longer required since that aspect of the business has changed. Our business is healthy and thriving.
Thank you very much. I did already have a look at that but I am a little confused by the fact that we only have one employee in this role. Many of the examples focus on making multiple people within a role redundant and the selection process behind this.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
In that case read Dolphs link.
Quite simple to make someone redundant f the role no longer exists - golden rule, it's the role that's redundant, not the employee.
Redundancy is pretty straightforward if it's honest and the manager does it properly - just be straight with him and tell him there is no longer enough work to justify his role, give him a months notice at the end of which he will get statutory redundancy pay, if you're feeling generous offer more.
You presumably have things like his attendance record, customer complaints etc to rely on as criteria?
It's not that complicated - what is complicated is when employers try and weasel out of their obligations by 'dropping hints' or finding the pettiest reasons to fire someone instead of going down the genuine redundancy route.
You presumably have things like his attendance record, customer complaints etc to rely on as criteria?
It's not that complicated - what is complicated is when employers try and weasel out of their obligations by 'dropping hints' or finding the pettiest reasons to fire someone instead of going down the genuine redundancy route.
I forgot to add that he has had 6 weeks of "sickness" in the last 9 months and we have heard rumours that he may be working for another company during this time. He is not the kind of guy that would even want to change, he outright refuses / argues with everything you tell him. We are worried about the prospect of him becoming physically violent and maybe even attacking us.
Essentially, if that job is only done by that individual, then you make the role redundant, and if there is no alternative position to offer, then compulsory redundancy follows.
It gets a bit more complex if he does a similar job to others, and you still have to enter consultation (30 days) before you can make him redundant, you also have to show that you have had meaningful consultation (eg you've actually listened and considered alternatives proposed).
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If there is only one person doing that role then selection criteria is not necessary.
Pools of one are frowned upon at tribunals but I wouldn't worry about that.
I would again draw attention to Amigafan's point, if you are going down the redundancy route, you are making the role redundant, not the individual. This sort of thing can be considered as part of the selection criteria, but only in a 'Employee X is better to keep than Employee Y', rather than 'we don't want employee Y anymore'.
Thanks for the advice. We genuinely have no work that the employee can carry out. He has been leaving 2 hours early because "there is nothing to do". We can't afford to keep paying him to sit around our warehouse drinking tea. He has refused to work weekends (which is when the majority of our work is conducted) because this interferes with his drinking. We have tried to accommodate him but he seems to complain for everything and we believe we are in for a rough ride.
We are planning to offer him a redundancy package, he has only been working for us for 18 months but we are willing to be extremely generous in what we offer. He will be given one months notice on full pay and put on "gardening leave". We are not looking to screw him over but can no longer pay him to sit around.
All other employees are also directors of the company so I am not sure if that changes things.
It does, because that means they definitely don't share a job role.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Sounds a reasonable approach, can't see anything wrong with that.
Slip in an Alcoholics Anonymous leaflet in his leaving card?
Yes, he came in to work one day complaining he hasn't had a drink for 4 days because he was ill and his hands were shaking like mad from withdrawal symptoms.