Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
You have mentioned that your friend joined a "proprietorship manufacturing firm". In such firms the service rules or terms of contract for Senior positions are generally decided by the Proprietor. Now he can make a request to change the condition. As long as he is productive and useful for the organization, he will not be asked to leave.
Such terms appointment of appointment, providing for different notice period are there though not very much popular. Such terms, viewed strictly are not illegal though unethical and inequitable. Such an employer has a valid defence legally that these are our proposal which has been wilfully accepted by the prospective employee for the consideration we are offering and hence the employee is bound by it. It is neither a contract made by force or misrepresentation nor violating any express provision of law. Although such terms go against the age-old premise that the terms of a contract have to be fair and equitable to both parties to the contract, yet such uneven terms do not render it illegal or unenforceable.
With Respect to KK HR views:
The terms and conditions should be equal and fair. That's why my freind didn't sign the appointment letter and requested the mgt to review and revise them which he is so far not responded. Normally detailed appointment letter is issued after joining. And this concern org issued appointment letter after 2-3 months' many follow ups. Should have my freind or any employee in his place left the job for not getting appointment letter giving up his bread and butter?? Even if he or anyone seeking an employment urgently did sign the appointment letter, the terms should be viewed partial, unfair, unjust and got accepted under reluctant situation. Some organisations adopt this tactics intentionally so can not stand under legal scrutiny. These organisations also have the trend of not giving confirmation letter after probation period knowingly despite the concern good performing and capable employee sends many emails about confirmation letter...but the company gets work done duly by the same employee.
At a time, we are talking of social justice and fair employment policy, this is really very unfortunate practice being adopted by some Org. In my opinion Govt should strictly monitor on this and enforce strict laws about the matter

I entirely agree that such terms are totally bad and is an unhealthy trend creeping now a days in the not so professionally managed organisations. Yet it is there and exploiting the unemployment market there are many organisations doing this. The only point I am making is that it cannot be termed entirely illegal and no specific provision of law is violated by this clause.
Yes, it has to be different. If probation is 6 Months or max 1 Year. Then notice period should be 1 Month. Thank you.
I have a different take on the concept Probation Period. This could be basically a legacy left behind by British, decades ago. In good old days, customer database, communication etc. were manual or depended on printed documents. With the explosion of modes of communication changing the way we connect with people, probation period for experienced people should not at all be the mandatory six months. Probation is required for those who are totally new to working ie from campus to corporate. However, those who have work experience, and shifting from one job to another, why give probation period at all. If a person with 5 years experience in sales changes jobs, how much time does he require for getting to know the customer base, organisation culture, processes, systems etc ? One month ? When people of this generation are net savvy, why one requires six months to prove his skills ? Are we not hiding under the cloak of probation for poor performance ? When things are changing... we talk of speed in processors in PCs, Mobile phones, connectivity, Pizza, 108 ambulance, why not expect a newcomer to an organisation too to perform and prove his speed in performance within 1 month or two ? Am opening a pandora's box here for people to come up with your opinions. Last January, I was in Doha, Qatar advising a 30-year old logistics firm. They had this problem of people leaving at short notice, even within the probation period of six months, despite having vast experience in their job roles I told them to reduce the probation period to just one month to prove the person's abilities. They were happy at my suggestion. Best wishes
Dear Mr Sundaram sir,
With due regard to your views, I beg to differ.
Though your suggestion of one month's probation to experienced hires apparently appears to be out of box ,but I am afraid, may not help as a single cause in arresting attrition during probation.
However scientific our recruitment process and honed judgement about all round suitability of new hires solely may be, it leaves much to be proved by the candidate after joining. He comes with his deep rooted paradigm about work habits and it certainly needs good time for him to manifest his abilities to give deliverables and adjust culturally.
Tata group's Chairman's appointment is the case in point.
Therefore, legal aspect apart, the longer probation period is necessary for both the organisation and the individual to assess each other's suitability. Yes, whether the probation period should be of three months or any period up to six months is debatable.
Your attributing Doha ,Qatar hires solely to longer probation period appears simplistic .The reasons could also be due to wrong job- person fit or several other possibilities.
I would be obliged if some research findings are given in support of your contention that the employee retention /attrition rate during suggested one month's probation period has significantly improved.
The longer probation period is good HR practice both legally and otherwise , may be its genesis is in British Raj, which gives both opportunity to arrive at matured judgement on each other's suitability and I strongly believe it is facilitating.
Even given the best of the best ability to judge person, I believe one month's probation period will be inadequate for both.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR- Consultant

My line of argument is quite simple sir: The period of probation should be inversely proportional to the years of service of an individual. As he grows in stature and caliber, he should have lesser time to get on with his new assignment and should not hide under Probation Clause for his inefficiency or non-performance. Probationary period should not be sacrosant for non-performance. Of course, it is for the individual HR departments to take a call on this and make it flexible for different bands of experience, Best wishes
Check the terms and condition of appointment letter,there is no differences in this.
Dear, Greetings!! Since, you friend had given already consent in the inception of his joining. Hence, he is liable to abide with. Thanks & Rgds

Please Login To Add Reply






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™