Was asked to resign at work

[diabolus]

At the risk of sounding like an arse, i must just re-iterate, while everyone is clearly fighting the OPs cause here, with legal requirements and what not, i have to wonder what is the other side of the coin here?

I've worked at places where the company have "under performers" . These are always people who can't do the job, or don't want to do it. Now everyone knows it's probably close to impossible to legally fire someone for being a lazy and incompetent (the government is a good example) . So what happens? The person is either just moved into a corner and ignored , or they are given mundane, "dead-end" tasks in hopes of them leaving on their own accord. This sort of thing not only spreads like a cancer within the company, but it's not exactly good on morale if you're trying to perform with all these slackers floating around (knowing full well they are doing nothing and the company can't fire them).

Alot of small/medium companies don't have the resources or skill to do all these performance management type of stuff either. I've only encountered these things in large corporates , or companies which actually have an HR department which does not consist of 1 person who also runs payroll and finance.

So in the OPs case, again, you have to ask yourself, are you under performing? While the employer might be a d*ck about this, and bullying you and not following procedure, it does not help if he is actually right! Are you really willing to go on additional training courses, write exams, get monitored and measured in more detail, being "spoon fed" by seniors to get you on required performance levels, constantly reporting every progress to bosses etc etc? I mean don't fool yourself, they are going to watch you like a hawk, right down to how many times you go to the bathroom.

Everyone here is assuming the OP wants to do all those things. If i was in the same situation, and i know full well i am being a lazy arse because i absolutely hate the work, hate the people and any additional actions to make me less lazy will just anger me further, i will make a serious plan to leave ASAP.

Why not negotiate a combination of the resignation deal and getting more time to find a job? Like, say, you want to work 2-3 more months while looking for a job and then you'll resign with the additional month pay ?

 

[WaxLyrical]

What grantza said.

If he goes the CCMA route how much more can he get from the company over and above the 2 months compensation salary that they're offering him.

 

[noxibox]

Follow Dj's excellent advice. Unless you are the Minister of Communications in which case you should seize the resignation offer with both hands

On a serious note, I'd like anyone reading this thread inclined to label people troublemakers for seeking restitution through the CCMA troublemakers to consider Wazup's situation and revise their opinion. Whatever you think of the CCMA, it's purpose is to protect employees from this type of illegal and unethical behaviour and people in a genuine predicament should be able to exercise their rights without fear of being judged by others.

I just mention the above because it seems to be a recurring theme in threads of this nature. Good luck to Wazup in resolving your situation.

I've seen how badly some employers treat their employees. The more vulnerable the employee the worse they get treated. I've seen bad management pin their failures on underlings. Management make unrealistic demands then call employees incompetent and threaten them with being fired. I've seen employers bully employees into working long hours without additional pay, denying them sick and annual leave. In one case the management were telling this foreign women working here legally that if she didn't work whatever hours they told her they'd have her permit revoked and get her deported. They also told her she wasn't entitled to paid leave of any kind.

Tough one. Personally I would take their offer as it would be a very negative space to stay in and you don't want the mess of being fired. Word gets around if you took an employer to CCMA and no employer who hears of that will ever hire you again once you have gone down that route. Still, I am fairly confident in my ability to get new work. If you are not then perhaps ask for a month or two to improve your performance and put your CV out and see what comes.

Anyone who has gone to the CCMA and finds they now cannot get employed should take the matter to the labour department. In truth no company that intends to act within the law would fear hiring someone who had to go to the CCMA.

Is your work that bad that in a normal labour market you would be fired?

You must be making some strange assumptions about the labour market and companies.

 

[F1 Fan]

Name of the company? Im interested to know as I had two friends experience the exact same. They both resigned.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Name of the company? Im interested to know as I had two friends experience the exact same. They both resigned.

Pretty sure that might jeopardise his position and I wouldn't recommend that he post it.

 

[Ianf1]

You must be making some strange assumptions about the labour market and companies.

Nope strange labour market. My own situation is I have implemented a time and attendance bonus which starts at 5% monthly and decreases if the employee comes late or does not come to work. This was to be able to give accurate turnaround times. That is strange but works for me.
Can you imagine implementing this "Discipline without punishment" in current labour market?

The new procedure eliminated warnings and reprimands and disciplinary suspensions without
pay. Instead, it focused on requiring individual responsibility and decision-making. The most
striking demonstration of management’s rejection of traditional thinking was the decision to
abolish the conventional unpaid disciplinary layoff as the final step and replace it with a radical
new procedure: a paid disciplinary suspension. DISCIPLINE WITHOUT PUNISHMENT
Page 5 COPYRIGHT © 2001 Dick Grote
Upon reaching the final step of our new system, the individual was told that he would be
suspended from work on the following day. He was told that he must return on the day after the
suspension having made a final decision: either to solve the immediate problem and make a total
commitment to fully acceptable performance in every area of his job; or to quit and find more
satisfying work someplace else. The cost of this day was on the company to demonstrate our
sincere desire to see him change and stay. “But if you decide to remain with us,” his boss
cautioned, “another disciplinary problem will result in your termination.” His future was placed
in his own hands. We would accept whichever decision he made: Change and stay; or quit and
find greener pastures elsewhere.
The results? A year later terminations at that plant had dropped from 58 to 19; the following year
they were down to two. The atmosphere was transformed;

This changes from the adversarial approach now of employees holding the CCMA over the employers head to an adult approach. But my guess is this would be construed as constructive dismissal here.
You need checks and balances in the system but from my perspective it has gone to far in favour of the employee.

 

[Swa]

I'd ask them nicely to retrench me instead - on condition that they still pay me the two months' salary.

In which case you claim from your UIF and retrenchment cover (you do have this, right? seeing that you knew they might let you go). That way its a win win for both of you.

The reason why I'm saying this is because they can easily claim you're redundant because, lets face it, you add no value at the moment. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the way business works.

^ This.

If you really wanted to work there I would say fight them on it. With labour laws even unfairly skewed in the employee's favour it's extremely hard to legally fire someone. As you don't want to stay and they can make the working conditions even worse it's best to just go. But don't resign. Do what's been suggested and agree to voluntary retrenchment. That doesn't reflect badly on your record and you can get an additional 6 months salary from UIF. If you do standard work they have no leg to stand on and the 1 month's pay isn't a favour either as it can be seen as paid leave with 1 week salary for retrenchment. If they are hard arsed about it make it clear to them that the law is on your side so it's the best option for them. They also can't spread false information about you if you go the CCMA route as you can then sue for libel as well so there's nothing to fear about going that route. Plus this...

Anyone who has gone to the CCMA and finds they now cannot get employed should take the matter to the labour department. In truth no company that intends to act within the law would fear hiring someone who had to go to the CCMA.

Good companies should have no problem with the CCMA and support it. If a company does they should be avoided. Then as an added bonus publish the company's name after this so we know to avoid them.

 

[noxibox]

Nope strange labour market.

It is a rather strange assumption that managers and companies always act rationally. Which of course any exposure to the inner workings of businesses would have demonstrated is not necessarily true. And whatever a normal labour market is either doesn't exist or companies and managers fail to act rationally even though it does. Hence managers do pick on individual employees, what management claims about the quality of someone's performance may not bare even the slightest resemblance to reality and companies do make irrational firing decisions.

Employment, generally, is inherently an adversarial relationship.

The CCMA is an adult approach. The labour law requirements are exactly those of giving the employee feedback and an opportunity for improvement. It puts checks and balances in place to prevent the sort of unilateral decisions that were the norm before these protections were put in place. Companies have always pushed to whatever limits the law allows, and from what I've witnessed in South Africa they still do. If the law were relaxed it is fairly obvious they'd just push to the new limit.

A year later terminations at that plant had dropped from 58 to 19

What happened there is that management changed their bad attitude.

 

[eXisor]

For me it boils down to:

a) Do you agree you're under performing? If so, is it because they're expecting you to do something your CV doesn't support, or is it because your CV is inaccurate? If the former, they must train you to give youa decent chance to do the job. If the latter, the honourable thing to do is take their best offer and find a position that matches your accurate CV. You may hold out for a better deal here, but the next job is going to end you up in the same place. You could end up being unemployable in this field if you cannot do the job.

b) If you don't agree your underperforming, you need specifics of failures to see whether it is your or their perception which is at fault. Some failures may not be your fault, but a pattern of failures is bound to indicate you are underperforming. It may not be the news you want to hear, but rather hear it sooner than later else again, you may become unemployable in this field.

c) If their are no failures or the failures can consistently and accurately be attributed to be not your fault I'd consider the CCMA route. In this case you may have a case since your being expected to succeed in a situation where you cannot possibly do so.

In my view, making a company go through the lengthy process of warnings at al is ultimately self defeating. They will get rid of you in the end if you cannot do the job and your place of work will become a place you dread going to. Since it's a third of your life, do you need that? Also, why punish them for your own failures? Is the field you're in really for you?

If you're not firmly in the c) option above, I'd take their best offer and consider whether I'm in the correct field or what I can do to avoid this in my next job. If you don't, it'll happen again.
.

 

[MyLowBandwidth]

Avoid CCMA. It's a flawed, unfair process that is based on outdated labour law. Employers have wised up.
Everyone here seems to agree. Get the best deal you can. Take the money.

If you got to CCMA for alleged unfair dismissal, you might get 1 months salary if you win. That's because you have only worked there for a year. If you win, it will be because they scored an own goal and didn't follow procedure. You will not win in terms of substantive fairness, you have admitted to under performing. They've already broken procedure guidelines by asking you to leave.

http://www.oldmutual.co.za/document...de of good practice_dismissal for conduct.pdf

Take note of incapacity dismissal:

a) Given the employee appropriate evaluation, instruction, training,
guidance or counselling, and
b) After a reasonable period of time for improvement, the employee
continues to perform unsatisfactorily.

B) fails in your case because they have never told you what you need to do better, it appears...

Anyway, procedural unfair dismissal is now viewed as quite petty at CCMA so they might give you one month. Since they offered you one month anyway, take the money. Chill at home for a week and then hit the job market.

Make sure you do everything on your side in writing. Every single little agreement or statement. In writing. No matter what.

And the last thing to remember is this. There is no such thing as a bad employee. There is only bad management. So go to your next job with your head up and believe in yourself.

 

[KalMaverick]

Avoid CCMA. It's a flawed, unfair process that is based on outdated labour law. Employers have wised up.
Everyone here seems to agree. Get the best deal you can. Take the money.

Really not sure what thread you've been reading...

 

[ponder]

Really not sure what thread you've been reading...

+1

 

[Moosedrool]

The employer already raised their voice IMO, you only have the 2 choices. Yes written warnings might be a problem but it will be much easier for you to start looking for other work ASAP. Going to CCMA is not an option as mentioned by some other members, it's easy these days for corporations to make things cost you more than it would if you just did as asked.

About the bonus part, ensure you read through your employers rewards and incentives policy before reporting back with management about the situation. Whatever is in the company policy is what happens.

 

[Swa]

You will not win in terms of substantive fairness, you have admitted to under performing.

I haven't seen anything of the sort. They claim underperformance as they naturally would but I've seen that claim even with people that do more than they should so it doesn't make it valid.

 

[ld13]

You cannot retrench staff, and then rehire a person into the same position in a certain time frame, without offering the position first to the person who was retrenched.

Yep. Some people just do not know that. A friend of mine was asked to 'train' and show around a newly hired (co)manager that would end up sharing the workload between the two of them. When he came back from his leave they 'retrenched' him on the basis that his position has become obsolete. An ubergood lawyer of some sort took his case to the CCMA on a no-win-no-fee basis as the employer's negligence was blatantly obvious. You cannot hire someone for position X and then retrench the person already in position X - no matter in what order it occurs. Won the case without any hassle. Employer changed the business' name overnight and they are still trying to get the $$$ out of him.

How can I be assured they will pay me for June? I must get it in writing, yes?

Future date your notice of resignation perhaps?

 

[MyLowBandwidth]

Really not sure what thread you've been reading...

+2... I meant that there seemed to be general consensus that OP should take the money offered! I didn't mean that there was consensus on my statement that CCMA was outdated and flawed. That's just my opinion.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[MyLowBandwidth]

I haven't seen anything of the sort. They claim under performance as they naturally would but I've seen that claim even with people that do more than they should so it doesn't make it valid.

True, but he didn't explicitly say that he wasn't under performing. If an employee is faced with an accusation of poor performance, surely that employee would ask his accuser to substantiate the claims of poor performance. In his posts, the OP seemed to accept the accusation without questioning it. And sure, one persons standard of work could be vastly different to another persons and while of a lesser standard, it does not necessarily mean that the performance is not adequate.

Hence the reason that job specifications and formal training are absolutely crucial.

 

[noxibox]

If an employee is faced with an accusation of poor performance, surely that employee would ask his accuser to substantiate the claims of poor performance.

In a hostile work environment?

In my view, making a company go through the lengthy process of warnings at al is ultimately self defeating.

The point is to give the employee a fair chance.

 

[isie]

what hapend to the OP?

 

[Bismuth]

what hapend to the OP?

Resigned?

Hence, no internet?

B