Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think I shouldn't have a disciplinary due to not getting a promotion

67 replies

UnderHisEyeBall · 29/10/2019 15:02

For a position that was never advertised?

One of the points in a letter that has been sent to me and HR by my manager as he starts disciplinary proceedings against me is that I would be expected 'by now' (18 months into starting the role) to be in a position to be promoted, to a deputy role that doesn't exist yet. And nor have they advertised this one.

This smacks of clutching at straws. Or is it just me?

OP posts:
ActualHornist · 29/10/2019 15:10

How is this even possible? Surely once the proceedings will start HR will tell him not to be so fucking stupid?

The only time this would be reasonable would be if you were at one grade with the expectation you would have passed professional exams by a certain point and you haven’t. But that doesn’t seem the case here.

ActualHornist · 29/10/2019 15:11

Sorry posted too soon.

Surely what he means is that you require a performance plan to get to the level he deems appropriate to your skills.

I can’t tell if he’s trying to push you up or push you out Confused

onanothertrain · 29/10/2019 15:19

Sounds like he's putting you on a performance improvement plan. Within 2 years you can be sacked for any or no reason.

Stickybeaksid · 29/10/2019 15:20

Maybe they thought you would be at the level to promote you by now but they don’t think you are ready. Are you in disciplinary proceedings for misconduct or a performance plan for underperformance?

Itsallpetetong · 29/10/2019 15:26

to be in a position to be promoted

I would assume they are saying you are underperforming in your current role rather than actually saying you are getting a disciplinary for not getting a job that doesn’t exist.

LolaSmiles · 29/10/2019 15:27

It sounds complex and like you'd need union or legal advice.

For example, I can think of some lines of work where each year you'd be expected to demonstrate a level of competency and at certain states you'd be expected to be at the level where you would be ready to apply for the next level post if one arose. It's not that you should be going for promotion, but performing at career expectations would be of that level.

Without knowing your pay structure, how progression works in your company, the rest of the letter and so on, I'm not sure any of us can say if they are clutching at straws

Original poster
UnderHisEyeBall · 29/10/2019 15:28

Yes it is a performance plan. They want me out. It's just the point about not being in a position to be promoted to a position that doesn't exist is odd, as I don't know how on earth I can defend myself against it as achieving this aim would be literally impossible.

OP posts:
BuildBuildings · 29/10/2019 15:29

It sound like what they are trying to say is you are underperforming. Or that they would expect you to be able to work at a more senior level by now. Although this needs to be rigorously evidenced. If this is the way you're manager is talking about it they probably don't have that evidence.

Original poster
UnderHisEyeBall · 29/10/2019 15:29

There is no pay structure, progression ladder iyswim or professional exams involved.

OP posts:
onanothertrain · 29/10/2019 15:37

Then they probably want you out and they're going through the motions. I'd start looking for another job.

KateDuRhone · 29/10/2019 15:43

If your performance is being questioned, your questions to them should relate to your objectives (do you even have any), what was discussed in your last appraisal/performance review (were any issues raised then), what support have you asked for, been given etc.

TSSDNCOP · 29/10/2019 15:45

How long have you worked there OP?

TSSDNCOP · 29/10/2019 15:45

I know you say 18 months in role, but have you worked their longer?

LolaSmiles · 29/10/2019 15:45

It seems an odd thing to do if they want you out as that sort of point would easily be challenged with union or legal advice.

Like Kate says, your performance being questioned should relate to your objectives and your job description, and if there's concerns then they should be documented with support in place.

However, you are under 2 years service so I'm guessing they'll be hoping you walk.

weymouthswanderingmermaid · 29/10/2019 15:48

Its probably badly worded, but I assume it means that you haven't made the expected amount of progression re skills etc so they are going to put you on performance management. Were you aware of any issues before this? Do you have an appraisal structure / objectives?

Doggybiccys · 29/10/2019 15:51

My organisation has something similar - with a certain time frame, everyone is expected to be in a position to apply for a higher grade, even if the job itself doesn't exist / there are no vacancies.

what they are saying is......"we want you to have all these skills that sit with a higher pay grade but we won't necessarily reward you for developing them".

It's led to a fair bit of angst amongst staff on the new contracts.

ChicCauldron · 29/10/2019 15:54

You are focusing on the wrong point, OP - it's not about the existence (or otherwise) of the role, it is about their expectations that you would be performing at that standard by now.

Focus on your own performance. There really isn't any point in saying that the role isn't available at the moment because they wouldn't appoint you to it as they feel you are not performing at that level.

Don't try and pick holes in their case, but aim to show how you would meet the criteria or what training/support you would need to do so. For promotion they are likely to be looking for you to exceeed your current job description.

TSSDNCOP · 29/10/2019 15:58

The two year rule has exceptions and an employer shouldn’t consider they are automatically safe to dismiss someone. Stating that you cannot progress into a post that doesn’t exist is thin ice. A woman I know well was recently in a similar position; she successfully argued that as her Line Manager has left 6 months before and not been replaced she had no clear objectives to measure her success in her post.

havingtochangeusernameagain · 29/10/2019 15:59

If they want you to be working at a certain level have they made those expectations clear and do you understand the criteria? Have they given you any support or training that you might need to meet those criteria? Did they tell you that was expected when you started in the job? Seems rather unfair to me to recruit and pay you in one role and then criticise you because you are not good enough for a higher role unless that was the well articulated plan from the beginning.

ThatMuppetShow · 29/10/2019 16:00

You are under-performing, or not performing at all. That's all it is.

Do you know what is expected of you, and how far ahead of your current level you should be by now?
Are you struggling, or are you just not bothered?

coffeeforone · 29/10/2019 16:01

you say that was one of the points in the letter. Have they raised any other points (that are more valid)?

adaline · 29/10/2019 16:19

It sounds like they think you're underperforming considering how long you've been in the role.

Is there any truth in that?

PuzzledObserver · 29/10/2019 16:21

Let’s say OP is on grade 2, and the non existent job is grade 3. Can they discipline her for not being in a position to take a grade 3 job (should one exist), as long is she is performing her grade 2 job satisfactorily? That doesn’t seem fair to me - not everyone wants promotion.

adaline · 29/10/2019 16:23

Let’s say OP is on grade 2, and the non existent job is grade 3. Can they discipline her for not being in a position to take a grade 3 job (should one exist), as long is she is performing her grade 2 job satisfactorily?

It doesn't sound like that's what's happening.

I think what they're trying to say is that after 18 months, OP is expected to have reached certain targets and she hasn't done that.

underground76 · 29/10/2019 16:25

You've misunderstood the letter.

What they are saying is that, after 18 months in a role, they would expect you to be performing at a level where you could theoretically be promoted if the opportunity arose. What they are saying is that, after 18 months in the job, they would have expected you to have reached the top standard of performance for that role.

They're not proposing a disciplinary because you haven't been promoted, they're proposing a disciplinary because you haven't reached the level of performance they feel they need from you.