To think this person is not been treating fairly?

[workdramahelp]

Changed name and some details as could be quite sensitive.

Work for a large corporate company. Im lower-mid management. My boss recently left and taken temp ownership of her team while they get someone else.

I'm now managing someone on same level as me but with completely different role / background. He has come to me on a poor performance rating. Their old manager (who does the same role) has come to me and suggested going down to 'managing out' route which I spoke to my manager about, but was all was fine, just need to set clear goals etc. to improve performance. Which I have done.

Anyway, since then another team are making redundancies, and they want to keep one of those guys but get rid of my guy (granted they are 'better'). But not through redundancy, just on poor performance. And they want to do it quickly. Oh and I have to do it.

AIBU to think this is a bit underhand? This person is fairly vulnerable and I just think they deserve to do through the correct process without being rushed OR get redundancy which would soften the blow?

it seems very cheeky that they want you to do a v difficult management job of managing a person on your level with poor performance, when you are someone who has temporarily stepped up to the role.

If I were you, I'd request guidance every step of the way and try to hand this responsibility over to someone else as much as possible.

The company are attempting to avoid their legal responsibilities when there is a redundancy situation. That is illegal and unfair. If they push this chap out by using poor performance, when there isnt any and he can see that he is being treated unjustly it may well cost then significantly more at an Employment tribunal. Try to get them to act within the law and show the workforce some respect

Your reputation could be seriously questioned if you're asked to give evidence at a tribunal.You're being used in a similar way to the other employee and you need to share your concerns by email every step of the way.

You absolutely need to follow procedure to the letter. You don't say how long this colleague has worked there but if it's more than two years you could be looking at a tribunal if you don't.

Do you know if this colleague wants to stay with the company? It sounds as though, based on the redundancies, there might be an appetite for offering a pay-off if he actually wanted to leave. But if he wants to stay, he has to be given the chance to meet performance goals.

Thanks everyone. They have been with the company for 3/4 years.

Confirms what I thought. Thanks.

The issue is they cannot make your guy redundant and then immediately replace, because it’s the role that’s made redundant. Not the person. The persons employment is terminated when their role is made redundant, I think a lot of folks, probably yourself included don’t understand that.

So management are in a difficult position, they want to keep the high performer versus the very low performer. Which is to be expected, but if they go down the redundancy route then they need to make your guys role redundant. Hence likely why they are making this request to manage out the poor performer and replace with a strong performer.

It isn’t a personal thing, and you need to look at it within the confines of the law and what’s in the business interests

Try to get all instructions around this confirmed by email (even if that means you email them after a conversation saying "just to confirm, you advised I do x, y, z. I'm going to check with HR how to do this as this is all new to me, then will proceed. Thanks for your help.").

Also, make your own notes on all the conversations re being "managed out" (dates, times, location, witnesses, etc).

You've got a great opportunity to protect yourself here on the basis you're providing temporary cover in this role and haven't been trained on all the procedures. This makes it perfectly reasonable to be checking with HR every step of the way (which a manager in this position should be doing anyway if they're unsure) and to get it crystal clear as to the grounds you're using for each step of the formal process, both so that you can communicate these to the employee and so you're clear yourself on the law and the procedure.

Also, have you checked the job description for your new role to work out what your role/responsibility is in respect of formal HR processes? It might not say much, but there might be something useful in there, depending on how detailed it is (it might say "with the support of your line manager, HR, etc" which might be helpful to justify why they need to be involved too).

I also wonder whether they are taking advantage of the fact you're new to this role, and how much support from HR the old manager would have had on this. I can't imagine you'd be left to do this without HR support in a big corporate, but that may be exactly why they've picked on you to do this. Part of being in senior management is pushing back and if they are going to give you the responsibility to carry out this task, you also need to have the freedom to make your own decisions and use your own judgement. Either they don't want your expertise and judgement, in which case, they can deal with unlawfully "managing him out" themselves, or they can give you the responsibility and autonomy to do it properly, involving HR and lawful procedures.

As a PP says, you will end up giving evidence at a tribunal if this gets handled wrongly, so it's definitely worth covering yourself and making sure you don't do anything you disagree with unless someone superior is prepared to authorise you to do it in writing.

I would also be mindful of your own employment protections in all of this - if you are feeling coerced and that your own future at the company would be in jeopardy if you fail to follow unlawful procedures, it's important you get advice (try ACAS) before doing anything and before approaching HR.

Also have a look at your company's policies (both disciplinary and grievance and whistleblowing) to familiarise yourself with your company's official position on all of this stuff.

Sometimes just saying "that goes against our disciplinary and grievance policy, so I'll need to check with HR" is enough to alert colleagues to the fact you're not going to be used as a patsy and are going to do things by the book. Once they know that, they may well back off (this has worked for me before - colleagues soon learn who will help with their dodgy dealings and who not to bother asking).

In your position I would be encouraging the worker to join a union, let them know who the workplace rep is etc.

@LonginesPrime

Try to get all instructions around this confirmed by email (even if that means you email them after a conversation saying "just to confirm, you advised I do x, y, z. I'm going to check with HR how to do this as this is all new to me, then will proceed. Thanks for your help.").

Also, make your own notes on all the conversations re being "managed out" (dates, times, location, witnesses, etc).

You've got a great opportunity to protect yourself here on the basis you're providing temporary cover in this role and haven't been trained on all the procedures. This makes it perfectly reasonable to be checking with HR every step of the way (which a manager in this position should be doing anyway if they're unsure) and to get it crystal clear as to the grounds you're using for each step of the formal process, both so that you can communicate these to the employee and so you're clear yourself on the law and the procedure.

Also, have you checked the job description for your new role to work out what your role/responsibility is in respect of formal HR processes? It might not say much, but there might be something useful in there, depending on how detailed it is (it might say "with the support of your line manager, HR, etc" which might be helpful to justify why they need to be involved too).

I also wonder whether they are taking advantage of the fact you're new to this role, and how much support from HR the old manager would have had on this. I can't imagine you'd be left to do this without HR support in a big corporate, but that may be exactly why they've picked on you to do this. Part of being in senior management is pushing back and if they are going to give you the responsibility to carry out this task, you also need to have the freedom to make your own decisions and use your own judgement. Either they don't want your expertise and judgement, in which case, they can deal with unlawfully "managing him out" themselves, or they can give you the responsibility and autonomy to do it properly, involving HR and lawful procedures.

As a PP says, you will end up giving evidence at a tribunal if this gets handled wrongly, so it's definitely worth covering yourself and making sure you don't do anything you disagree with unless someone superior is prepared to authorise you to do it in writing.

I would also be mindful of your own employment protections in all of this - if you are feeling coerced and that your own future at the company would be in jeopardy if you fail to follow unlawful procedures, it's important you get advice (try ACAS) before doing anything and before approaching HR.

Also have a look at your company's policies (both disciplinary and grievance and whistleblowing) to familiarise yourself with your company's official position on all of this stuff.

Sometimes just saying "that goes against our disciplinary and grievance policy, so I'll need to check with HR" is enough to alert colleagues to the fact you're not going to be used as a patsy and are going to do things by the book. Once they know that, they may well back off (this has worked for me before - colleagues soon learn who will help with their dodgy dealings and who not to bother asking).

I’m not sure about this, this is clearly from someone who has not been ever employed to deal with something similar and doesn’t understand employment law, most of these posts are.

Bottom line is unless the roles are identical and it seems they are not, then they can’t make your guys role redundant if they need the position, as they can’t replace, I think in the uk it’s for six months, possibly twelve.

The op is talking about making the person redundant, that’s incorrect, it is the position.

If her guy is a historically poor performer already on pip, then the company are facing loosing a strong employee they wish to keep. In favour of a historically poor performer on pip. No company wishes that. In addition they are vulnerable so likely to suffer long term issues. This doesn’t mean they are entitled to employment. It just means proper procedures need to be followed.

The op is reacting emotionally as are most of the responders. To terminate her guys employment they need to follow procedures and she needs to work with hr to do it. But terminating a poor performers employment is wholly possible.

Op you need to speak to hr to understand what you need to do and how. If you believe this employee can perform satisfactorily and it’s better to retain him rather than the higher performing employee. You need to speak to your management.

Thanks for taking so much time to reply.

I've got a meeting with a HR person on Monday so hopefully they will be able to help me.