Hold fire on brutal sackings

IT’S painful stuff to watch - which is probably why we find it so gripping. In the cult television series The Apprentice, global entrepreneur Donald Trump doesn’t so much sack people as publicly flay them.

There is no negotiation, no beating about the bush. They’re fired and they’re out. Onwards and upwards. Only the strong survive - and then, only for so long.

The Apprentice, a huge hit in the US which has just finished its first series on BBC2, is compulsive yet at times gruesome viewing. It has turned the statement "you’re fired" into a global catchphrase. Perhaps its grisly attraction is that as we watch it, we all hope we will never, ever have to endure a workplace experience like that.

Sackings happen every minute of every day, and handling a dismissal in the best way for all concerned is one of the most difficult yet one of the most crucial skills any manager has to learn. Get it right, and it’s something of a rite of passage. Mess it up, and your future may be as uncertain as the person whose career you have just terminated - not to mention the legal implications of failing to follow strict dismissal procedures that came into effect on October 1.

These new regulations make it much more difficult to sack someone, and effectively place Donald Trump’s brutal career executions firmly in the land of fiction - in the UK, at least.

Employers now have to follow a carefully drawn-up process that gives the employee every right to have his or her case heard and examined. If companies make a mistake - even a technical one - during this process, then the dismissal will automatically be held to be unfair.

The new legislation also affects staff, who must make sure they follow their company’s grievance procedure rigorously. If they don’t, any claim they make for compensation could be barred.

The new rules are designed to reduce the burden of cases coming before industrial tribunals by making in-house disciplinary and dismissal procedures more rigorous. Small and medium-sized companies have been particularly guilty in the past of taking a cavalier approach to sackings.

"If you’re the kind of company that shoots from the hip and fires someone without good cause, then you’re now very likely to be in breach of the law and to face the prospect of getting sued," explains David Walker, an employment law partner with Dundas and Wilson.

In general, human resources advisers recommend that bosses treat the people they are about to fire with sympathy yet firmness. The skill is to balance resolution with compassion.

The process varies enormously, depending on whether you are making a loyal member of staff redundant or sacking the employee from hell who has just punched the managing director.

In every case, a firing must be a last resort. Many people are dismissed not because of some gross misdemeanour, but simply because they’re not up to the job or because the company and its culture have moved on and they haven’t. In many cases, they have put in years of service. They should be given every chance to turn things around.

"The way a company responds to a sacking says a lot about that organisation," says Neil Paterson, divisional general manager in Scotland of The Hay Group UK, a global human resources consultancy.

"I sum it up with the phrase ‘tough love’. If someone has to go, then fine, but you have to deliver that decision with sympathy. It’s important to understand the emotions the person you’re firing is going through - perhaps relief, but also anger, despair and perhaps desperation."

The key, he adds, is to handle the matter with dignity. "If you can do that, then it allows everyone to move on quickly. You also have to recognise that there are some people within a company to whom compassionate behaviour comes more naturally than others.

"If managers don’t have the personality to handle firing someone, then they won’t be able to handle the tension and stress and will probably say the wrong thing and mess everything up." And, of course, break the law and face a legal claim that could run into tens of thousands of pounds.

Most managers agree that the most difficult sackings are those involving chronic under- performance. Redundancies are deeply unpleasant, as the employees concerned have not usually done anything wrong. But at least they can be sent away with praise for their performance, a glowing reference and the possibility they may be re-employed in the future.

At the other end of the scale, someone who has committed a gross violation not just of the company’s disciplinary code but also the law - assault or theft, for example - can expect to be dealt with quickly and told to leave immediately. If the evidence is compelling, they have no real argument against the decision. However, even in these exceptional and seemingly straightforward cases, the employee must still be given the right of appeal.

Underperformance is different. It is a matter of subjective interpretation. An employee may feel he or she is performing perfectly well, and is being picked on, or did not receive adequate training. In these cases, it is particularly important that due process is followed. If the matter is not handled properly, with plenty of warnings given before the final decision to deliver the coup de grce, then litigation could ensue.

Kathryn Boyd, head of HR at recruitment firm Search Consultancy, says: "By following properly drafted disciplinary processes and procedures, there can certainly be a fair way of sacking people. Throughout the procedure, individuals must be made aware of their alleged ‘offence’ and given the opportunity to put forward their versions or explanations of events.

"They should also have the right to be accompanied at any meeting," Boyd continues. "Outcomes should not be prejudged and, depending on the circumstances, all of which are different, dismissals should be a last resort. Throughout the entire disciplinary process and beyond, employees should be treated fairly, consistently and with respect."

Keith Robinson, managing director of the financial services outsourcing consultancy Origin HR, points out that the law over redundancies has also now changed, with a consultation period meaning all employees are fully aware of what is likely to happen.

"The old days when you could just call people together in a room and tell them they were going have been legislated out. Yes, people may say the new rules prolong the agony, but I do think they are better. Because of the complexity of the rules, more and more companies are now calling in external agencies to help with the process."

Robinson believes that the concept of allowing time before the final sacking takes place must also apply in cases where the offending employees have been architects of their own demise.

"A date for a hearing should be set and if circumstances merit it, the person involved sent home on full pay pending that meeting. That may even be appropriate in the case of an employee who has committed gross misconduct, although of course they should be sent home straight away."

This cooling off period allows the employee to focus on his or her defence and also gives the company time to determine if it is following the proper legal procedures. In the case of some sectors, such as financial services, regulatory authorities may also have to be informed.

As Neil Paterson observes, few managers are skilled at sacking staff, as it’s something no one has to do very often - though with the introduction of the new regulations, they will have to hone their sacking skills rapidly. "It’s a way in which you can really find out the quality of your executives," he concludes.