9 DAY EE

ScorpioHR

We have an ee who will be employed with us 9 days as of today. Obviously, she is in her 90 day probationary period and I can let her go without notice, reason, yada yada yada-Here is my problem. I am firing her because 3 of the doctors who own the company have worked with her previously at others facilities (not ours) and state she is “far below average’ in job skills-The supervisor hired her while I was in Europe so the standard ritual and paperwork did not happen. We want to let her go today, but, the docs think she should be given 1 week severance as this is the supervisors fault for hiring her without following procedure-If we give her a weeks severance, can she use it against us?? I need to do this at 4 pm today, quick help is appreciated.
scorpio

szemcumo

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-17-04 AT 01:18PM (CST)[/font][br][br]We have never given an ee notice when firing regardless of the reason. I would not give serverence.

Jewel

Has she done anything wrong so far? What position was she hired for and in what capacity was she working in when the owners knew her before. If she was a nurse and and screwed up royally with her patients before, you may have a case but if she was a secretary and just didn't have the typing skills, you may be judging her unfairly. It sounds like something more is going on here. Dig a little deeper.

Jewel

ScorpioHR

Well, she was working in the same capacity (Rad Tech Aide) at the previous jobs my doc's knew her from. They feel she cannot do the work they will require based on her past performance at other facilities.

ray a

Has she demonstrated substandard work during her 9 days with you? Can you say with a straight face you are letting her go due to her current performance or is the decision based on history elsewhere and these doctor's say-so? Preferably you should make the decision based on her performance over the past 9 days. And if so, no severance - otherwise you will be expected to pay it to everyone you term who do not live up to expectation. Then advise everyone, including the owners, no one - absolutely NO ONE - will be hired without your involvement even if that means calling you in the middle of the night in Europe.

ScorpioHR

Ray,
I am letting her go because that is what the owners want.I told the doc's any severance pay was a bad plan as it would set precedent and be something I have to fight with the ee's about, they do all talk.

Crout

Your 90-day probation period isn't a magic shield against anything, but if I'm reading you correctly, you're worried that your kind gesture could be interpreted as evidence of foul intent. The thing is that could happen anyway without the severance...your ee is gonna do what she's gonna do. The only way to combat her running to the EEOC (for example) is to tie the severance payment to a Separation Agreement, where she essentially signs away her right to sue your company.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-17-04 AT 01:33PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Is it common practice for a supervisor to hire somebody in your absence? If not, what counseling has taken place with the supervisor.

I think probably doctors are notorious for not liking somebody, maybe because she brought in brownies that were too tough. Aren't doctors treated like royalty, catered to, and anybody who doesn't kiss their ring is thrown to the lions? I think this may be closer to the truth. I would have an interview with the ee just as if it were her first with the company. And would reach my own assessment of her skills. I'd ask the supervisor what she based the hire on and what skills she detected in her interraction with the employee.

Severance, in this case, in the minds of the ones who suggested it, is nothing but hush money. If she's a minority or over 39, you have trouble looming in the wings. At minimum, she WILL qualify for UI if you let her go as you say you will.

(edit) Scorp; you do have your work cut out for you if you are going to change the culture there. I have no clue as to the potential for success. A few days ago, regarding some other goings on at your company, a fellow participant responded with this comment, and I think the same applies with this hire while you were away. """Your problem is that you are emersed in an environment that teaches and promotes poor management practices. Your solution is to do your homework, find a set of princlples and practices that are well grounded in HR and scratch and claw your way to changing the culture by implementing (in this case a hiring policy) for your managers and supervisors."""

Sometimes cultures, like hurricane paths, change really slow. Sometimes they never change.

ScorpioHR

I spoke with the supervisor. She states another doc in our practice said this woman was o.k. No, she is in no minority group.As for the supervisor, we are in the process of replacing her (slowly, slowly) It is difficult to find competent people to replace her. It is a technical and supervisory position and they do not grow on tree's...apparently!

"Aren't doctors treated like royalty, catered to, and anybody who doesn't kiss their ring is thrown to the lions?"

We have 9 partners in this practice and yes, many can be as you describe. However, the 2 doc's that are most vehement about her going are wonderful, considerate people who treat us very well. I really do not think that is the issue. I think they are concerned about us swinging into "high" season with a substandard rad tech aide.

marc

Uh oh, the battle of the docs. Are all the docs giving input partners? Did the hiring supervisor just go to the one doc on a whim or do your procedures call for some kind of internal reference check for all new hires?

I only ask because the process followed did have an ok from one doc, and the supervisors input has got to have some meaning. That said, you could be spitting into the wind to go against the 2 docs that had the bad experience. With just 9 days invested, it might be best to re-hire. I would also not pay severence.

If the medical community is such that everyone knows everyone else, your hiring process should take this into consideration to poll your group to see who objects and why. This could get messy but could also save you tons of later grief over a bad hire or a bad fit.

pork1

In history of being involved with these proceedings and in our state. My company would not be charged with paying UI if the employee has not completed our 60 day orientation. The fact that there has been an unfortunate hiring and a great embarassment for everyone, must be put aside for the benefit of the ee who already has a group of doctors associated with the firm who are not happy with the ee for whatever reason. You owe it to the ee to call it quits before there is a discrimination situation allowed to develop. The customers are deserving better for a well run physician firm, it is always noticable when the custmer service is not happy and totally customer oriented. Call it quits and a severence is as stated is "HUSH money" and a slap in the face of the EE. If you and the senior physician owner/partner want to put her on paid leave to get her resume out there, then do it that way and no one needs to know the difference.

What a shame!

PORK

ScorpioHR

"What a shame!"

Absolutely, my thoughts in a nutshell. This whole situation is a mess and has certainly pointed out an already obvious situation with my co-managers. They want a body in a chair, they want it NOW and no amount of policy and procedure seems to stop the runaway train. I spoke with the COO yesterday before leaving work, I managed in a 10 minute conversation not to use any bad words, man I wanted to. We decided not to let her go at this point. We will meet with the 2 doc's, review her paperwork, resume etc. try to get better feedback and go from there. Thank you all for your advise. I will keep you posted!
scorpio

Don D

Pork: I know you tend to go sideways when I disagree with you; but, try not to. In our state, termination during an 'orientation period' has absolutely no affect on whether or not the claimant will qualify for unemployment benefits, or whether your account will be charged. While it is true that your account may not be charged if your account paid no wages during the base period, unemployment determinations are based on the reason the individual is unemployed and whether or not it 'was through no fault of his own', without regard to orientation periods, probation or other circumstances. His history of wage credits in the past four/five quarters plus the previously mentioned criteria are the determinants. If you have ever won a hearing by claiming that 'He was still in an orientation period', I would like for you to share that with me.

It is also true that if you are not a base period employer now, you may well be later, when he files another claim after another termination. I may not have completely understood your post. Qualifying for benefits and account charge are obviously two separate issues. I just don't want anyone to think that termination during probation rules someone ineligible. Chargeable, maybe not. Eligible, certainly. x:-)