Category Archives: poor performance

Dismissing Staff with Less Than Two Years Service

I am often asked by clients about dismissing a member of staff with less than two years service. It is good to check as whilst this may seem relatively straightforward there are a few things to bear in mind before proceeding. Caution is recommended along with the necessity for an employer to show reasonableness.

poor performance

Under two years service an employee does not have the right to claim unfair dismissal. This may lead an employer to think they are protected from an employment tribunal claim. However, this is not necessarily so depending on the circumstances that have lead the employer to consider dismissal after a short period of service.

Often the employee has not performed particularly well since starting employment. As a cost is usually attached to recruitment a wise employer should put in place a structured probation monitoring period where regular documented meetings take place to discuss with the employee progress that is being made and whether any support and/or training is required. This shows investment in the new employee and can boost their morale encouraging good performance. If an employer ignores this due process, as many do, it can lead to under performance that may impact detrimentally on the business including colleagues.

In my experience some employers can ignore the situation hoping things will get better until they consider enough is enough. It the situation is allowed to drift on until almost two years is up the period of notice needs to be considered which may launch the situation into a possible unfair dismissal situation if not carried out properly.

It is always best to tackle poor performance in a probation period as quickly as possible and not ignore the situation. The reason for the underlying under-performance should be considered. It may be that a disability is impacting on the situation which needs to be tackled very carefully looking at ways things can be improved via reasonable adjustments. An early discussion with the employee is recommended and consideration to an occupational health advisor may be needed.

For poor performance that is tackled early and where there is no improvement it should be possible to invite the employee to a meeting to discuss their under performance and the need to dismiss them from their employment. Whilst there not be a need to put a formal structured process in place as is required if the employee has over two years service best practice would be to send a meeting invite letter and give the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or a work colleague.

At the meeting iIf documented meetings have taken place during the probation period these can be referred to. The meeting should be followed up in writing confirming the outcome should dismissal be required, giving details about the termination including P45 provision. I usually recommend that the employee is given the right to appeal.

Under performance or capability is a fair reason for dismissal. Other reasons may include conduct, redundancy, breach of statutory provision or some other substantial reason.

In certain circumstances the dismissal may be classed as automatically unfair. This can include reasons related to pregnancy/maternity, asserting a statutory right such as taking annual leave or the right to the minimum wage, health and safety concerns, whistleblowing and any form of discrimination, If an employee is dismissed due to a protected characteristic which include include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation as detailed in the Equality Act 2010 this is automatically unlawful. 

In any case the decision to dimiss should not be taken lightly and every effort should be made to try and get the employee up to speed as quickly as possible and certainly not leave it until almost their two years of service is up.

Additional information on dismissing staff with under two years service can be found at

Is the Introduction of "Fire at Will" Dismissals a Good Idea?

Osborne has just proposed the introduction of “fire at will” dismissal law that will enable small employers to dismiss staff more easily.  The employment minister Norman Lamb is unveiling plans during March which would remove restrictions on laying off staff at businesses with fewer than ten employees.  It is proposed that poorly performing employees are laid off whilst the employer can recruit staff who will perform more effectively. It is claimed that current rules allow employees to “coast along” without management action.  The proposal is designed to support the “cutting the red tape challenge” and increase employment.  However, the latter is debateable whether employment legislation is contributing to increasing unemployment.
There are plenty of employers in the UK that do not currently adhere to employment law and in treating their staff poorly run the risk of incurring an employment tribunal claim during which successful employees have the right to be compensated for lost employment rights.
Should the government introduce their proposal of compensated no fault dismissals, employment rights will be diminished.  The government’s proposal is underpinned by an anticipation that the value of small businesses to the economy will increase.  However the danger of changing the law to allow easier dismissals for small companies could instead backfire and scupper the government’s plans of their contribution to economic growth.
There could be many underlying reasons of poor conduct that require deeper investigation and promotes fair treatment.   If the law is changed and small businesses are allowed to operate in a “fire at will” manner, the effects on employee morale within a company could be very damaging.  Company reputation will also suffer and have a negative impact on the bottom line.  If the dismissal has a discriminatory angle employees have the right to go to an employment tribunal regardless of length of service adding to costs.
Poor performance, regardless of company size, is easy to manage through a fair process of monitoring and support.  Practical advice can easily be sought from an HR practitioner. 
The government needs to carefully think about the introduction of such a proposal. Coupled with their firm intention to introduce fees for claimants to lodge an employment tribunal claim, access to employment rights for many down trodden workers will be, all but, practically removed.  This will mean going back to before the beginning of the 20th century when protection for worker rights began and will not be good for the future.