Consequences of firing for poor performance

[hrgr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
We have a supervisor that was in charge of a job and did not complete the job according to the plans. We now have to redo the work at cost to the company which may be potentially thousands of dollars. What are the consequences to the company of firing him for this? Or if he recently received a raise can we take it back? Would he be eligible for unemployment benefits if he were fired for this?

 

[mlane58]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
We have a supervisor that was in charge of a job and did not complete the job according to the plans. We now have to redo the work at cost to the company which may be potentially thousands of dollars. What are the consequences to the company of firing him for this? Or if he recently received a raise can we take it back? Would he be eligible for unemployment benefits if he were fired for this?

Unless he has a bona fide contract, you can fire him for wearing the wrong colored socks. You can stop the raise, but any monies earned prior to the change have to be paid out for work already performed.

 

[cbg]

Unless you have really, really, really good evidence that he deliberately did the job poorly, yes, he would get unemployment if you fired him for this. Poor performance is rarely a disqualifier for UI. But there would be no legal consequences; it's quite legal to fire someone for poor performance.

It would also be legal to reverse the raise, as long as you notified him of the reversal before he worked any hours at the lower rate.

 

[commentator]

commentator

If you terminate him at this point for poor performance, and you cannot document that he knew exactly what he was supposed to do, had demonstrated his capablity to this job or something very similar in the past, and that he suddenly, at this point, due to something like maybe a change in his attitude, anger at management, in other words, some deliberate decision on his part to screw this up, then he would probably be approved for unemployment benefits.

All he would have to say is that he did the job to the best of his ability, that he showed up and did what he could, and he was terminated because he found it impossible to produce the results you were asking for. This is not misconduct. If he made any attempt to let you know while the project was on-going that he was experiencing problems or asked for help that was not received, this would be more evidence in his favor.

If, however, he made a deliberate effort to cover up on-going problems with the project, deceived you about results, and did not inform management that the job was in trouble until you found it out, this crosses over more into the misconduct area. In fact, this could be terminated for failure to keep his managers about a work situation, not just "poor performance." I would always, in termination issues, be quite specific about the reason someone was terminated.

Failure to do a good job on a work assignment may or may not be a misconduct issue. It has a lot to do with how you spin it. If you want to get rid of this person, you can inform him that you have made the decision to lower his salary, giving him very specific reasons why his salary was lowered. You cannot reduce him to less than full time hours or to the point where he is no longer eligible for benefits, as this will violate the hiring agreement, and he will likely qualify for unemployment benefits.

He will then have the personal choice to quit, and if he quits and files for unemployment benefits, he will have to prove that he had a good work related reason to quit. It is less likely that he will be approved if you have done your homework on your reasons for the salary reduction.

 

[pattytx]

You cannot reduce him to less than full time hours or to the point where he is no longer eligible for benefits, as this will violate the hiring agreement,

What "hiring agreement"? I saw nothing about a bona fide contract.

 

[commentator]

commentator

Well, you know, now I think about it, this is something sort of assumed I suppose. Because if someone comes in and tries to use as a device to get someone to quit a job, or as punishment for something, and cuts their hours on what has always been a "full time with benefits job" back down to a part-time with no benefits job...even without a bona fide contract that was signed, it is considered to "violate the hiring agreement." Just a term, I guess. Not many people actually sign a hiring contract, at many trades type jobs.

While the company can do this overall, as a cost cutting measure, cut all employees hours or salaries, or do some reductions across the board, doing it to one person specifically to force a quit is generally not considered a legitimate thing to do. And if they do this as a punishment, not across the board, cut his salary drastically, even without a contract, I suspect even Texas unemployment laws will be lenient toward him.

 

[cbg]

I just want to remind everyone that whether unemployment benefits are or are not granted does not have anything to do with the legality of the termination. That understanding seems to be getting a bit blurry.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Well, you know, now I think about it, this is something sort of assumed I suppose. Because if someone comes in and tries to use as a device to get someone to quit a job, or as punishment for something, and cuts their hours on what has always been a "full time with benefits job" back down to a part-time with no benefits job...even without a bona fide contract that was signed, it is considered to "violate the hiring agreement." Just a term, I guess. Not many people actually sign a hiring contract, at many trades type jobs.

While the company can do this overall, as a cost cutting measure, cut all employees hours or salaries, or do some reductions across the board, doing it to one person specifically to force a quit is generally not considered a legitimate thing to do. And if they do this as a punishment, not across the board, cut his salary drastically, even without a contract, I suspect even Texas unemployment laws will be lenient toward him.

Are you talking about a "breach of implied contract"? Because that's not applicable in Texas. I actually have a feeling that's not what you mean, but wanted to mention it in case it is.

 

[hrgr]

Reducing salary as consequence of poor performance

So how much could his salary be reduced as a consequence of his poor performance if we do not want to terminate him? Is there a percentage/limit for Texas?

 

[cbg]

That depends on whether or not you care if he collects UI or not. If you do, then you'd better check with the TWC for an exact answer as that varies from state to state and situation to situation. Commentator might be able to give you an idea but her state is not Texas. If you don't, you can lower him all the way down to minimum wage, which is all he's due under the law in the first place.

 

[hrgr]

Thanks. That helps.

 

[hrgr]

Salary reduction due to poor performance

When reducing an employees salary would we have to give him a copy of the explanation and review showing why his salary was reduced? This is like a review form that usually employees sign. In this case it will be a negative review. By law would we have to give him a copy of it?

 

[cbg]

No, not in your state. However, why would you not want him to have a copy?

 

[hrgr]

I don't know why they would not want him to have a copy. Thanks for the response.

 

[hrgr]

I wonder what will happen if he insists on a copy and it is refused to him.