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

[UnderHisEyeBall]

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?

In my job after 2 years you're automatically promoted to next level . No job is ever advertised. Obviously they have to be happy with performance. So in essence you do the same job but now on more money.

Does your organisation do a scheme like that and don't feel you're suitable to be promoted?

I agree with ThatMuppetShow.

1. People who are content in doing their jobs well, don't want promotion but do a good job
2. People who want promotion and act accordingly and plan their careers
3. People who are lazy clock watchers, usually to the bare minimum and complain if they're expected to do their job to a reasonable standard. In professional jobs they can be quick to waste time gossiping and sitting around but are often the first to complain about workload and not having time

yepp, also agree with muppet

I think as long as you are fully competent in your current job that all that matters. to be promoted you have to be exceeding in your role, this cannot be a performance management issue because you're not under performing, you're just not overperforming!

ThatMuppetShow
People cruising along are hardly worth keeping

Depends on what you interpret as 'cruising along'. I'm self-employed and I'm pretty ambitious anyway, but I can well imagine someone e.g. in their mid-50s, say, employed, house paid off, car paid off, loans paid off, no debts, kids have flown the nest, they have everything they need/want, etc. I don't think they'd necessarily be looking to get promoted, even if they had just started a new job. They may be happy in their job, just doing a good job working at their level.

this cannot be a performance management issue because you're not under performing, you're just not overperforming

It doesn't say that, though.

WhisperingPines
you are right, I probably didn't express it well. It's more people doing the bare minimum that I have an issue with.

People good at their job but happy at their level can also be a bit tricky - some will still be willing to adapt, but others are too stuck in a way that they end up being less and less performant. You see it when a new management arrives, anyone moaning that things are "changing" for no better reason that they don't like change become a pain.
You also have some issues when their own managers become younger and younger...

It's all about people's attitude really.

ThatMuppetShow

I think you forget a 3rd kind: the ones who do the bare minimum, would never dream of starting 1 minute early, are jumping off their chair the minute the clock reaches 5 and so on and will start a thread on MN if anyone dares emailing them a question whilst they are on sick leave!

Hahaha that's me! I do manage to get my work done in my hours though. I used to be the eager beaver type who worked overtime and got involved with everything but unfortunately at my company that effort was not recognised or awarded so I stopped acting like a mug and started sticking to my contracted hours and tasks.

My manager will regularly text me to ask about work things when I am at home with flu or migraine. I feel this is unnecessary, and I do feel pressured to come back to work before I'm fully recovered.

OP if you think they just want to push you out you should talk to your union and decide what YOU want to happen, rather than just reacting to what they are trying to do to you.

If employers want staff to 'go the extra mile' they can fucking pay them properly. If you're on the minimum wage, your employer shouldn't expect more than the agreed hours and agreed tasks.

If you're on the minimum wage, your employer shouldn't expect more than the agreed hours and agreed tasks

of course
but when it's time to chose who to get rid of, or who to promote, you are making that choice easy.

If you're not underperforming ie your assigned work is being completed during your agreed hours, that's the maximum a low-payer can ask of you. And they can't get rid of you for not agreeing to unpaid overtime when it's not in your contract.

It's a pity more people don't see that bad employers don't deserve free labour. I'm fairly sure, for example, that whatever OP's job title, her job is some shitty cubicle-mouse irrelevant role that contributes little to the world, because that's what an awful lot of jobs with arbitrary rules and unreasonable expectations are.

I suspect the OP has pulled out a comment that represents a small proportion of the letter.

Its likely that it contained a number of areas where performance was deemed to fall short and why 'and we would expect you to have reached a competency level where you could be considered for promotion..' or words to that effect.

If she wants to stay then don't focus on the wrong thing, engage with the process and acknowledge the areas needing improvement.

If not then yes she should start the job search asap.

And they can't get rid of you for not agreeing to unpaid overtime when it's not in your contract.

who said it has anything to do with overtime?

You don't get it, do you, it's not just about clock-watching, it's about the general level of work and attitude during your working hours.
The clock watchers who literally stop in the middle of writing a sentence because it's time are ridiculous, but being content with doing the very bare minimum is not a reason to keep you.

her job is some shitty cubicle-mouse irrelevant role that contributes little to the world

someone seems to project a tad on this thread...

I think that poster believes (rightly or worngly) that the vast majority of office jobs fall into this category. It wasn't a slur on the op.

@stealthpolarbear Yes, that's true. It wasn't meant as an attack on OP but on that type of workplace culture - jobs which contribute nothing positive to society and are essentially meaningless, yet there is an expectation of 'effort' and 'loyalty' and grateful compliance with all sorts of timewasting nonsense. this sort of thing.

jobs which contribute nothing positive to society and are essentially meaningless

if they are profitable, they clearly contribute something!