Handling Ex-Employee Dispute
I have recently joined a company as HR. Here is a case that the management has given me to solve. We have an ex-employee who is creating a lot of trouble for the management. The employee joined in July 2014 and was not given any confirmation letter. He was terminated in May 2015 due to non-performance and dishonesty on an immediate basis, and his partial dues were cleared with only Rs 20,000 remaining. Now, he is claiming his leave salary, bonus for 11 months, as well as an additional one month's salary. The management has decided to release only the pending 20k. The employee is difficult to handle and argues a lot. I have no idea what he was promised and what he has received. According to the information given to me by his seniors, only 20k is pending. Can anyone suggest what needs to be done to resolve this problem?
Thanks.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1I have recently joined a company as HR. Here is a case that the management has given me to solve. We have an ex-employee who is creating a lot of trouble for the management. The employee joined in July 2014 and was not given any confirmation letter. He was terminated in May 2015 due to non-performance and dishonesty on an immediate basis, and his partial dues were cleared with only Rs 20,000 remaining. Now, he is claiming his leave salary, bonus for 11 months, as well as an additional one month's salary. The management has decided to release only the pending 20k. The employee is difficult to handle and argues a lot. I have no idea what he was promised and what he has received. According to the information given to me by his seniors, only 20k is pending. Can anyone suggest what needs to be done to resolve this problem?
Thanks.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 pressurized by argumentative employees or over-talkative employees. Get your facts and figures right and deal with them firmly.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Do not get pressurized by argumentative employees or over-talkative employees. Get your facts and figures right and deal with them firmly.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Further to what Nath Rao said:
• Since no appointment letter was given, there are no specified terms to enforce. You need to look at standard terms in your firm or refer to the standing orders.
• If an employee was dismissed for dishonesty, there is no need for a notice period. This will be in the standing orders. However, there must be documented proof of dishonesty and preferably details of a domestic inquiry.
• If the employee was on probation, then again, there is usually no notice period.
• What was promised is immaterial now. For anything he claims is 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 provided details, we can't comment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
• Since no appointment letter was given, there are no specified terms to enforce. You need to look at standard terms in your firm or refer to the standing orders.
• If an employee was dismissed for dishonesty, there is no need for a notice period. This will be in the standing orders. However, there must be documented proof of dishonesty and preferably details of a domestic inquiry.
• If the employee was on probation, then again, there is usually no notice period.
• What was promised is immaterial now. For anything he claims is 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 provided details, we can't comment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Hi Sheeba, Agree with Saswata. You may review and proceed with the proofs/documents that you have in hand including the pending 20k settlement. No proofs...just ignore the issue.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Shri Banerjee, I don't subscribe to your views even to a little extent, as they are filled with more presumptions rather than being based on visible facts in the description of the querist, as can very much be expected from a rational HR executive.
Assumptions on Appointment Letter
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.
Assumptions on Dismissal for Dishonesty
Further, your assumption that the employee was dismissed for dishonesty also does not seem 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, the allegation of dishonesty cannot be taken for granted merely by making an allegation against the employee. Dishonesty has to be proved beyond 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 in 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 assumption that the management was wrong and would have acted irrationally somewhere in its action.
Assumptions on Notice Period
Furthermore, 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 the probation period.
Assumptions on Management Promises
Moreover, your assumption, "what was promised is immaterial now," also sounds irrational. That gives a clear indication of professing that the management can act irrationally by going back on its promise. Such an instance can only show deliberate mismanagement of the employer-employee relations, not rational management, which is expected from the managers at the helm of affairs. The question arises, what forced the management to make a promise to a non-performer and dishonest employee if it was unable to fulfill its promise? Another question arises, 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 as quite unethical for an HR executive, as it is not founded on material facts of the case. Such measures to tackle any problem can only result in distrust between the employee-employer, enhance attrition rate leading to escalating recruitment costs to an unimaginable level, and deplete the productivity of not only the individual employees but also the overall productivity of the organization as a whole.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Assumptions on Appointment Letter
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.
Assumptions on Dismissal for Dishonesty
Further, your assumption that the employee was dismissed for dishonesty also does not seem 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, the allegation of dishonesty cannot be taken for granted merely by making an allegation against the employee. Dishonesty has to be proved beyond 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 in 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 assumption that the management was wrong and would have acted irrationally somewhere in its action.
Assumptions on Notice Period
Furthermore, 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 the probation period.
Assumptions on Management Promises
Moreover, your assumption, "what was promised is immaterial now," also sounds irrational. That gives a clear indication of professing that the management can act irrationally by going back on its promise. Such an instance can only show deliberate mismanagement of the employer-employee relations, not rational management, which is expected from the managers at the helm of affairs. The question arises, what forced the management to make a promise to a non-performer and dishonest employee if it was unable to fulfill its promise? Another question arises, 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 as quite unethical for an HR executive, as it is not founded on material facts of the case. Such measures to tackle any problem can only result in distrust between the employee-employer, enhance attrition rate leading to escalating recruitment costs to an unimaginable level, and deplete the productivity of not only the individual employees but also the overall productivity of the organization as a whole.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When pontificating, it's always a good idea to read the original post instead of thinking too highly of yourself. I am marking with "**" what the original poster said.
Case Overview
I have recently joined a company as HR. Here is a case that the management gave me to solve. We have an ex-employee who is creating a lot of trouble for the management. The employee joined in July 2014 and was not given any confirmation letter. He was terminated due to non-performance and dishonesty in May 2015 on an immediate basis.
So yes, he was not confirmed, which means he was on probation. And being terminated for dishonesty means he was dishonest. Which part of the English do you not understand? Yes, I misread the part of the appointment letter.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Case Overview
I have recently joined a company as HR. Here is a case that the management gave me to solve. We have an ex-employee who is creating a lot of trouble for the management. The employee joined in July 2014 and was not given any confirmation letter. He was terminated due to non-performance and dishonesty in May 2015 on an immediate basis.
So yes, he was not confirmed, which means he was on probation. And being terminated for dishonesty means he was dishonest. Which part of the English do you not understand? Yes, I misread the part of the appointment letter.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saswat Banerjee, it is good if you try to justify your points of view, provided that the 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 based on rational thinking about the reality of things. However, you have not tried to justify the basis of your presumptions. The members here are expected to provide proper guidance to the querist members to solve their problems rationally, not in an arbitrary manner. A manager's job is not merely to please his bosses at the cost of the service of employees or by denying dues of employees. If that happens, the saying "people leave managers, not the company" can hold good due to such types of managers who prefer only to please their bosses rather than keeping a balance between the employer and the employee.
Needless to mention, the 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 of facing the sacked employee. It is merely a case of emotional blackmailing of the new entrant by the employer. Now, it all depends on him whether to make 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Needless to mention, the 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 of facing the sacked employee. It is merely a case of emotional blackmailing of the new entrant by the employer. Now, it all depends on him whether to make 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
HR Manual (Employee Hand Book).doc
Competency-base d HR Management.ppt
Mastering HR Management with SAP.pdf