After termination
jthomsen
5 Posts
I dismissed an employee who was still on 90 day probabtion period, due to complaints from other employees and patients. The employee had been talked to twice about issues . We decided to dismiss the employee before the probabtion period was up. The employee called back today and wants to have a meeting with me to discuss some things that were said in the meeting. Do I meet ? What more can I say? I feel a lawsuit in the makings.
Comments
If you decide to go through with the meeting, I would suggest some pointers to consider:
1. the ex-employee is disgruntled and may or may not be looking for lawsuit fodder (i.e., be careful what you say, how you say it, and be brief, concise, and to the point)
2. do not permit the ex-employee to bring anyone into the meeting (unless of course you are a union setting and a rep is required); and do not permit voice recordings (unless Texas law has a provision for such)
3. if Texas is an at-will employment state, you can discharge (and the employee can quit) anytime, for any reason or no reason, with or without notice. The difference for you as an employer is that you cannot, of course, violate any state or federal regulations in your discharge.
4. keep the meeting brief and have notes prepared for yourself; stay focused.
If I were conducting the meeting, it would be to review what the employee may not have understood at the time of discharge, not review work performance of the period from hire to discharge. I would also follow up the meeting with a letter confirming the reason for the discharge. Quite frankly, if your company allows a probationary period, the employee was let go for unacceptable work performance that was well documented, and the discharge is consistent with other employees in the past in similar circumstances, you should be OK. Do not permit the ex-employee to get the upper hand, he/she will probably try. When the ya-ya starts, it is time to end the meeting and dismiss the individual.
best wishes.
I would not hold the meeting.
If you handle the termination correctly, I would just tell the ee you are sorry it did not work and you believe all items were previously considered. I might entertain a letter if they wanted to submit one with their concerns.
Is there ANY chance a meeting would change your mind?
If not, I believe the meeting has a much stronger potential to hurt rather than help.
Just me.
If the employee still insists on a meeting, his/her intentions are probably more confrontational than just gathering information.
That said, like Ritaanz has said, I'd ask for a specific list of what the EE wants to discuss so you can be prepared.
Keep the conversation focused. Have another manager sit in on the meeting. You might even consider meeting off site so that you can leave if you need to.
Letting the employee speak their mind could provide some closure. I think its always best to defuse employees as much as you can. They are less likely to file claims or seek retribution. You don't have to agree with them but you can listen.
This is an employee that was terminated with LESS than 3 months of service. Who knows what this individual is capable of doing or saying. Why put yourself in a situation that may become volatile? Paul, not all ex-employees are reasonable.
I am unaware of any ruling that states that an employee in a 90 day probationary period has less rights than an employee who has been with the company several years.
My general approach is "keep the organization out of court". If that means meeting with a disgruntled employee to calm him or her down. So be it.
You do not need to agree to every request you receive from terminated people to "keep the organization out of court".
I agree as would be hesitant to meet in person as they may try to get their job back. However, think the line of thought that why not answer a question. At least you'll know what they're thinking. We have had this happen twice and in both situations (one being very similar), it was a case of reviewing the documents and advising what had been discussed with them in the past and why that lead to where they were now.
In both cases, they thanked us for the clarification and that was it - no further discussion.
The one time we've had something go further was when we took the "no further comment" approach. We came out fine but it was a lot more paperwork and time.
As for the debate on whether to meet or not to meet, it is interesting to see the two points of view. The argument not to go through with the meeting has merit, but I my position is still to go through with the meeting. It's a cheap investment to go through with a meeting that will probably not last more than 15 minutes if the HR rep is well prepared, takes and keeps control of the meeting, and doesn't permit the ya-ya stuff from the angry employee. It could be a very good opportunity to diffuse a situation. I've done it several times, and it is amazing how well it can work, even with brand new, short-term employees. And occasionally I am given insight into a supervisory situation that is valuable as well.
The reason I feared a potential law suit, is that I found out the employee had worked at another hospital before coming to ours, which he did not disclose on his application. At the previous hospital, there had been complaints about him and he quit before being let go.
He threatened that hospital with a discrimination suit, but did not pursue it. I did ask him in this meeting if he had previously worked at the hospital and he said yes. I asked why he hadn't put it on his application and he said because he wasn't there that long. I didn't pursue the issue further. He is not eligible for rehire because of hospital rules that were compromised.
I shook his hand and wished him well and he left.