I joined an Indian software MNC in July 2010. The company offer letter had a clause that "If an employee does not produce the copy of his/her passport within a year, his/her probation will be extended." There was one more clause in my offer acceptance document. It stated that "if the employee does not have a passport, the employee will bear the cost of a background check that will be performed in lieu of a passport."
My passport application got stuck, and I could not get it by August 2011 (which was the end of the stipulated probation period). The latter clause of "background verification in lieu of passport" was invoked. However, a problem occurred. The probation was extended, but the payment was reduced. There was a component that had to be paid ONLY during the probation period. It was eliminated in the extended probation period. I contested that if the probation is extended, the same payment should be continued, or the organization should clarify my designation/status in the organization. The reduced pay did not conform to any policy, neither did it correspond to any designation. I left the organization finally in January 2013 but kept sending them emails. They never replied with any significant policy or any substantial logic; they just paraphrased my query. I have explained all the further details in the attachment.
Challenging the Contradiction Between Clauses
My point is to challenge the contradiction between the two clauses mentioned in the first paragraph and make a point to stop the organization from reducing my payment. That is:
I. If the background verification was done, and my background was found clear, I should have been confirmed.
II. Even if I was not confirmed, and my probation was extended, the same payment should have been extended.
I want to send a legal notice now. But I would like to understand this from a collaborative perspective to be sure that this really is a case. Adding to it, the authorities are shying away from giving any substantial reply. One of the very senior authorities told me to avoid documented communication and work on a "let bygone be bygone" basis. I have serious doubts if he is really my well-wisher or if he is just avoiding any legal aspect.
Any lead will be greatly appreciated. In case it happens to be a legal issue.
Thanks!
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
My passport application got stuck, and I could not get it by August 2011 (which was the end of the stipulated probation period). The latter clause of "background verification in lieu of passport" was invoked. However, a problem occurred. The probation was extended, but the payment was reduced. There was a component that had to be paid ONLY during the probation period. It was eliminated in the extended probation period. I contested that if the probation is extended, the same payment should be continued, or the organization should clarify my designation/status in the organization. The reduced pay did not conform to any policy, neither did it correspond to any designation. I left the organization finally in January 2013 but kept sending them emails. They never replied with any significant policy or any substantial logic; they just paraphrased my query. I have explained all the further details in the attachment.
Challenging the Contradiction Between Clauses
My point is to challenge the contradiction between the two clauses mentioned in the first paragraph and make a point to stop the organization from reducing my payment. That is:
I. If the background verification was done, and my background was found clear, I should have been confirmed.
II. Even if I was not confirmed, and my probation was extended, the same payment should have been extended.
I want to send a legal notice now. But I would like to understand this from a collaborative perspective to be sure that this really is a case. Adding to it, the authorities are shying away from giving any substantial reply. One of the very senior authorities told me to avoid documented communication and work on a "let bygone be bygone" basis. I have serious doubts if he is really my well-wisher or if he is just avoiding any legal aspect.
Any lead will be greatly appreciated. In case it happens to be a legal issue.
Thanks!
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Based on the situation described, it appears that there is a clear discrepancy in the treatment you received regarding the extension of your probation period and the subsequent reduction in payment without a corresponding policy. To address this issue effectively, consider the following steps:
1. Review Relevant Policies: Examine the company's official policies regarding probation extensions, salary adjustments, and employee confirmations. Look for any clauses that specifically address the situation you encountered.
2. Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a labor law attorney or legal advisor specializing in employment matters to understand your rights and options. They can provide guidance on the legality of the actions taken by the organization.
3. Draft a Legal Notice: If the discrepancies persist and you believe there is a case for challenging the reduction in payment, consider drafting a formal legal notice to the organization. Clearly outline the contradictions in the clauses, the impact on your payment, and your expectations for resolution.
4. Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all communications, including emails, letters, and any responses received from the company. This documentation will be crucial if the situation escalates further.
5. Request a Meeting: If possible, request a meeting with HR or senior management to discuss the issue in person. Present your case logically and professionally, emphasizing the need for clarity and fairness in the treatment of employees.
6. Stay Professional: Throughout the process, maintain a professional demeanor and focus on resolving the issue constructively. Avoid confrontational language or actions that could escalate the situation unnecessarily.
By following these steps and seeking appropriate legal guidance, you can address the contradiction in the clauses and work towards a resolution that upholds your rights as an employee.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
541. Review Relevant Policies: Examine the company's official policies regarding probation extensions, salary adjustments, and employee confirmations. Look for any clauses that specifically address the situation you encountered.
2. Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a labor law attorney or legal advisor specializing in employment matters to understand your rights and options. They can provide guidance on the legality of the actions taken by the organization.
3. Draft a Legal Notice: If the discrepancies persist and you believe there is a case for challenging the reduction in payment, consider drafting a formal legal notice to the organization. Clearly outline the contradictions in the clauses, the impact on your payment, and your expectations for resolution.
4. Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all communications, including emails, letters, and any responses received from the company. This documentation will be crucial if the situation escalates further.
5. Request a Meeting: If possible, request a meeting with HR or senior management to discuss the issue in person. Present your case logically and professionally, emphasizing the need for clarity and fairness in the treatment of employees.
6. Stay Professional: Throughout the process, maintain a professional demeanor and focus on resolving the issue constructively. Avoid confrontational language or actions that could escalate the situation unnecessarily.
By following these steps and seeking appropriate legal guidance, you can address the contradiction in the clauses and work towards a resolution that upholds your rights as an employee.
From India, Gurugram
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.
Extension of Probation.doc