Dismissal but no real reason.

Stonedpilot

I work for a major financial instituation on a team doing customer service. Im sick of it and going to walk at the end of the 6 month contract.Anyway recently a friend on the team was called to a meeting and dismissed by the employment agency on the spot. He was shocked and so was I. 5 months into a 6 month contract. They (agency/centre manager)said there was behaviour issues and he didnt fit into the company ethos. He was a good employee and never did anything wrong. Only thing that ruffled the company was he refused to sign training received forms for training he didnt get and he would not sign error forms without clear evidence he made a error(which they never presented). It was very unfair the ambush and wishy washy reasons and he wants to bring them up before the workplace relations commission. When he pressed them for specifics they were not forthcoming. Its very obvious the managers did not like him and wanted rid of him so they Created a scenario to the agency he was not a "good fit". The contract we got does state employment can be terminated
On the spot but nothing there about "behaviour" issues.
Thoughts on this. Surely they must provide a vaild reason?!.

Stheno

Employment rights don't kick in until you are there 12 months, nothing he can do unless he was discriminated against under one of the nine grounds such as gender, etc

Nody

So attitude issues, on a temp contract and wondering why he got fired "out of the blue"... I suggest your friend gets a bit of cop on for his next job or it will be a repeat performance coming shortly because he is not a good employee as seen by most organizations out there.

Stonedpilot

Nody wrote: »

So attitude issues, on a temp contract and wondering why he got fired "out of the blue"... I suggest your friend gets a bit of cop on for his next job or it will be a repeat performance coming shortly because he is not a good employee as seen by most organizations out there.

Well no one else thought he had behaviour issues just the woman from the agency whom he never met prior to the meeting!. Told me they never even gave him a written or verbal warning prior.
Very poor form

Miaireland

Just remember you are only hearing one side of the story. It is in the agency interest not to have to fire him.

Short term temps have féck all rights. Worked in a similar job to OP. Nothing your mate can do about this sadly

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/unfair_dismissal.html

doolox

The bloke was asked to sign off on training he never received and acquiesce to "errors" he never made. In other words he was a finance or accountancy sector employee who refused to tell lies....a very good reason to stick to his guns and walk away from this company.

beauf

Not wanting to falsify records is an attitude problem? normal in most organizations? I don't agree.

...if you they don't agree with how things are done he probably better off out if it. I suspect there might be something else to this that the OP isn't aware of.

Creol1

Take a closer look at the contract and the company's disciplinary policies. If they failed to abide by procedures both he and they signed up to, there could be legal implications.

Creol1

Creol1 wrote: »

Take a closer look at the contract and the company's disciplinary policies. If they failed to abide by procedures both he and they signed up to, there could be legal implications.

But it's up to them to provide the necessary training. Still though, they could be downright in the wrong and he has no case. No loss if it's anything like the crowd I worked for

Stonedpilot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Short term temps have féck all rights. Worked in a similar job to OP. Nothing your mate can do about this sadly

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/unfair_dismissal.html

Really! Balls.
He was asked to sign forms he made an error. Branch really made the error but they wouldnt provide evidence when he asked them to prove that he was culpable. Nasty by them. Alot of shenigans going on. If people only knew how non existant security was at bank back offices/call centres. Its scary. Funny thing is calls/paperwork/records that prove someones innocence is "not available" despite everything being recorded.

beauf

...I think he had a lucky escape before he was invested in the place...

beauf

beauf wrote: »

...I think he had a lucky escape before he was invested in the place...

Im not sure emotional investment ever comes into it if its like what i was doing he would be taking serious heat on the phone.

Stonedpilot

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Really! Balls.
He was asked to sign forms he made an error. Branch really made the error but they wouldnt provide evidence when he asked them to prove that he was culpable. Nasty by them. Alot of shenigans going on. If people only knew how non existant security was at bank back offices/call centres. Its scary. Funny thing is calls/paperwork/records that prove someones innocence is "not available" despite everything being recorded.

well off out of there tbh. What he loses in money he'll gain in mental strength twice over

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

Im not sure emotional investment ever comes into it if its like what i was doing he would be taking serious heat on the phone.

I meant time and effort. Image being in their for 2 or 4 yrs then finding out you don't like it.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

I meant time and effort. Image being in their for 2 or 4 yrs then finding out you don't like it.

I get ya. If its the same job im thinking of i think you would know pretty much straight away. Tbh, the FG pat themselves on the back about the job creation but there is no permanent sustainable employment and if there is they want 10 years experience. If you want a mortgage, this type of employment is useless.

They can sack you anytime when its contract to contract. You are like a dirty nappy. I was refused a chance to attend my 4th year graduation because i didnt inform them in the interview that i needed time off on xth date :rolleyes: At the time, the college hadnt even announced the date of the ceremony but i chose the few bob over a ceremony that i had been through the two years previously because i just couldnt be bothered arguing over it but i still thought it was very petty. We were only training at the time and the training was as useful as a condom with a hole in it. In a stuffy room listening to an auld one who never took a call in her life telling us what to do from a manual.

Jim2007

doolox wrote: »

The bloke was asked to sign off on training he never received and acquiesce to "errors" he never made. In other words he was a finance or accountancy sector employee who refused to tell lies....a very good reason to stick to his guns and walk away from this company.

beauf wrote: »

Not wanting to falsify records is an attitude problem? normal in most organizations? I don't agree.

...if you they don't agree with how things are done he probably better off out if it. I suspect there might be something else to this that the OP isn't aware of.

Actually we only know that he told his mate that he was asked... we don't even have one side of the story, we have a third party version of one side of the story! It is not enough to start drawling any kind of conclusions.

beauf

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually we only know that he told his mate that he was asked... we don't even have one side of the story, we have a third party version of one side of the story! It is not enough to start drawling any kind of conclusions.

Its not CSI. Its the internet you have to take the OP at face value or just close the thread.

Drawing conclusions is the whole purpose of the thread....!

realitykeeper

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I work for a major financial instituation on a team doing customer service. Im sick of it and going to walk at the end of the 6 month contract.Anyway recently a friend on the team was called to a meeting and dismissed by the employment agency on the spot. He was shocked and so was I. 5 months into a 6 month contract. They (agency/centre manager)said there was behaviour issues and he didnt fit into the company ethos. He was a good employee and never did anything wrong. Only thing that ruffled the company was he refused to sign training received forms for training he didnt get and he would not sign error forms without clear evidence he made a error(which they never presented). It was very unfair the ambush and wishy washy reasons and he wants to bring them up before the workplace relations commission. When he pressed them for specifics they were not forthcoming. Its very obvious the managers did not like him and wanted rid of him so they Created a scenario to the agency he was not a "good fit". The contract we got does state employment can be terminated
On the spot but nothing there about "behaviour" issues.
Thoughts on this. Surely they must provide a vaild reason?!.

Companies avoid employing people for a plethora of reasons. I can see why.

beauf

Not willing to be complicit in fraud seems to be one of them.

realitykeeper

doolox wrote: »

The bloke was asked to sign off on training he never received and acquiesce to "errors" he never made. In other words he was a finance or accountancy sector employee who refused to tell lies....a very good reason to stick to his guns and walk away from this company.

If he was absent on the training day, it would cost the company a lot to rearrange training he might show up for, so no value in holding onto him. Also, by failing to acknowledge his errors, he demonstrates an argumentative personality (who might become a union type) and it shows a failure to accept responsibility.

dar100

Nody wrote: »

So attitude issues, on a temp contract and wondering why he got fired "out of the blue"... I suggest your friend gets a bit of cop on for his next job or it will be a repeat performance coming shortly because he is not a good employee as seen by most organizations out there.

is this the lazy answer, or is there verbal comprehension issues with your reply

Eire Go Brach

Your mate would want to get on board if he ever goes for a job in a public company. (o:
At least he know what he will have to do.

SGSM

Why does it seem like a lot of posters hate the OPs friend and glad he is dismissed?

Eire Go Brach

SGSM wrote: »

Why does it seem like a lot of posters hate the OPs friend and glad he is dismissed?

Business is business some would say. If you put yourself in the employer shoes. Employee was not confirming so he had to be dismissed. They have and hold that power and need to hold onto it.

From an employee shoes. The company is well dodgy and he dodged a bullet.

Tony EH

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Really! Balls.
He was asked to sign forms he made an error. Branch really made the error but they wouldnt provide evidence when he asked them to prove that he was culpable. Nasty by them. Alot of shenigans going on. If people only knew how non existant security was at bank back offices/call centres. Its scary. Funny thing is calls/paperwork/records that prove someones innocence is "not available" despite everything being recorded.

GTFO of that place as soon as you can.

If what you're saying about your mate is correct, he was asked to falsely accuse himself of wrongdoing. No job is worth that crap.

And yes, as has been already said, contractors aren't worth shite in the eyes of employers, who will treat them like dirt. This is the way we're going as far as employment in this country is concerned though. Crap wages for crap temporary jobs. That suits businesses, but it isn't any use for the employee.

Nody

Mod:
I've moved the discussion on low cost east vs. west etc. to this thread to keep this thread more on topic. Please keep the discussion on the salary and living standards to the new thread and if your specific post was not moved over feel free to repost it in the new thread (or the relevant parts of it).

Stonedpilot

Tony EH wrote: »

GTFO of that place as soon as you can.

If what you're saying about your mate is correct, he was asked to falsely accuse himself of wrongdoing. No job is worth that crap.

And yes, as has been already said, contractors aren't worth shite in the eyes of employers, who will treat them like dirt. This is the way we're going as far as employment in this country is concerned though. Crap wages for crap temporary jobs. That suits businesses, but it isn't any use for the employee.

True but it is a major major bank in Ireland that the contracts are with so it has been surprising how shady the customer support departments are in treating staff. OK most are fine but it only takes one or thing and the whole 'Clique' turns on you and gets the agency to come down on folk. It's sad that such massive companies can get away with such shoddy behavior and poor contracts.

Stonedpilot

SGSM wrote: »

Why does it seem like a lot of posters hate the OPs friend and glad he is dismissed?

People on boards LOVE TO JUDGE. Simples. He didn't do anything wrong at all in my book.

Lux23

realitykeeper wrote: »

If he was absent on the training day, it would cost the company a lot to rearrange training he might show up for, so no value in holding onto him. Also, by failing to acknowledge his errors, he demonstrates an argumentative personality (who might become a union type) and it shows a failure to accept responsibility.

But why should he acknowledge someone else's errors as his own? If I make a mistake I will freely admit but I am not anybody's patsy!