Hello All, One of our employees, who went on leave for three days, as his grandfather is in ICU. We have approved his three days leave; however, he is just joined one month ago. He is on a probation period. Now, he is asking to approve 20 days leaves which are not possible for us as he did not handover his work as well. He also said that if these leaves will against the company policy then he will resign from his role and will not serve any notice period. In that case his bond also applicable, but he is blaming the company that we are threatening him for bond and handover too.
Kindly suggest to us what should do in this case?
From India, Mumbai
Kindly suggest to us what should do in this case?
From India, Mumbai
@Hr
Bond and other formalities get alive / active, when the employee completes the probation and updated as regular employee, is is least effective on probation as the employee is treated under training, however NDA (Non disclosure agreement) comes immediate on joining.
Ask his immediate reporting head to make communication and if his ground is found genuine by the head, then try to allow some leave without payment, subject to flexibility of the work to be shifted to another person.
Medical emergency may happen to anybody, and it should be handled with lenient view.
628Bond and other formalities get alive / active, when the employee completes the probation and updated as regular employee, is is least effective on probation as the employee is treated under training, however NDA (Non disclosure agreement) comes immediate on joining.
Ask his immediate reporting head to make communication and if his ground is found genuine by the head, then try to allow some leave without payment, subject to flexibility of the work to be shifted to another person.
Medical emergency may happen to anybody, and it should be handled with lenient view.
Dear Hr-Intellial,
You have two options, one is to grant him a "Leave Without Pay" and other is to turn down his application for the extension of leave.
If you wish to be considerate towards the eventuality that he is facing in his personal life and grant him leave, then possibly he could remain loyal to your company and he might serve for a long time in your company. However, it depends on his sense of his gratefulness. Will he remain grateful to your company is a point to moot. Nevertheless, he has threatened to resign and has started blaming the company also. This shows his haughtiness.
The second option is to follow a routine admin procedure. Turn down the application for the extension of leave. If he fails to report for his duties then send a reminder and still if he fails then terminate his services. The benefit of following this option is that it will send a signal to one and all and a few other employees will not come with a similar request of leave on compassionate grounds.
However, you have written that "In that case his bond also applicable". If the employee has joined recently and is on probation then where is the question of having a bond? If you have kept him on probation and have inserted a clause on lock-in period in the appointment letter then it is absolutely a one-sided contract and may not stand the scrutiny of law in the court.
Therefore, which option to exercise that choice is yours!
Taking a lesson from this incident, you need to create a guiding principle in your company stating "company interest first, then department's interest and then individual's interest". The guiding principle will guide the managers in taking the right decision and avoid the dilemma as you are facing in this case.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
You have two options, one is to grant him a "Leave Without Pay" and other is to turn down his application for the extension of leave.
If you wish to be considerate towards the eventuality that he is facing in his personal life and grant him leave, then possibly he could remain loyal to your company and he might serve for a long time in your company. However, it depends on his sense of his gratefulness. Will he remain grateful to your company is a point to moot. Nevertheless, he has threatened to resign and has started blaming the company also. This shows his haughtiness.
The second option is to follow a routine admin procedure. Turn down the application for the extension of leave. If he fails to report for his duties then send a reminder and still if he fails then terminate his services. The benefit of following this option is that it will send a signal to one and all and a few other employees will not come with a similar request of leave on compassionate grounds.
However, you have written that "In that case his bond also applicable". If the employee has joined recently and is on probation then where is the question of having a bond? If you have kept him on probation and have inserted a clause on lock-in period in the appointment letter then it is absolutely a one-sided contract and may not stand the scrutiny of law in the court.
Therefore, which option to exercise that choice is yours!
Taking a lesson from this incident, you need to create a guiding principle in your company stating "company interest first, then department's interest and then individual's interest". The guiding principle will guide the managers in taking the right decision and avoid the dilemma as you are facing in this case.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear Glidor,
This post is my reply to your post. You have written, "Ask his immediate reporting head to make communication and if his ground is found genuine by the head, then..."
it may be noted that any kind of correspondence with the employee related to the administrative matter were to take place then it must be done by the HR department and not by the reporting authority. The HR Department may take concurrence from the HOD but communication has to be routed through HR. If the HODs start communicating with their subordinates on the admin matters then why do we need the HR department at all? HODs are executed to restrict their communication with the subordinates related to their department's work.
Occasionally, the top management's decisions are communicated to the HODs and they are told to cascade down to their subordinates. However, this is also exceptional.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
This post is my reply to your post. You have written, "Ask his immediate reporting head to make communication and if his ground is found genuine by the head, then..."
it may be noted that any kind of correspondence with the employee related to the administrative matter were to take place then it must be done by the HR department and not by the reporting authority. The HR Department may take concurrence from the HOD but communication has to be routed through HR. If the HODs start communicating with their subordinates on the admin matters then why do we need the HR department at all? HODs are executed to restrict their communication with the subordinates related to their department's work.
Occasionally, the top management's decisions are communicated to the HODs and they are told to cascade down to their subordinates. However, this is also exceptional.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
@Dinesh Divakar
Dear sir
As the post mention that the employee "did not handover his work well", here the HR and HOD is secondary, but the immediate reporting head is primary on list who failed to collect reports on routine basis.
officially the process is correct to communicate through HR, however the management has to get just few words from the immediate reporting senior also, for this lapse
Dear sir
As the post mention that the employee "did not handover his work well", here the HR and HOD is secondary, but the immediate reporting head is primary on list who failed to collect reports on routine basis.
officially the process is correct to communicate through HR, however the management has to get just few words from the immediate reporting senior also, for this lapse
Very simple, terminate him without any chance to defend (since he is on probation there is no need to give any notice or reason for termination) and ask him to handover duties. Since he has worked only for a few days, there would be hardly any duties to be handed over and therefore, even if he does not turn up nothing to worry. I have put this thought just because retaining such a person would create problems in future. It is good that he has shown his attitude in the first month of his joining itself. You may take some other person in his place, that would be better
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Karnataka Leave.xlsx
LEAVE APPLICATION.doc