Dear Deepthi, You should have asked her to submit medical ceritificates before joining. I wonder why didnt your company have such a policies. Actually In your case pregnancy is not a matter at all. If any employees performance is not well then the concerned organization have all rights to terminate their job. But you have to warn them before the termination. As you mentioned earlier, warning has already been given to the employee, so you can terminate her. To avoid these kind of cases ask the new joinies to submit Medical certificate.
From India, Gandhinagar
From India, Gandhinagar
[QUOTE=saswatabanerjee;2211988]First, please clarify : was it fraud or non performance ?
Further, was non performance amounting to negative impact / loss of customer or just less efficient. The answers to some extent would be influenced by that.
In general, she has worked more than 80 days before delivery date and is entitled to maternity benefit. As per the act you can not terminate her till the end of her pregnancy. So you are stuck with her. You can terminate her only in April.
She is smart, and probably planned this. You guys are taken for suckers, so now you don't have an option but to pay her salary and maternity benefit under the act.
________________________
I am surprised at the assertion the lady in question was someone who came with an intent to defraud. The first line clearly indicates you have no knowledge about the circumstances. Unfortunately, the third line is a judgement without having a shred of evidence.
Being pregnant is not a crime by itself unless the role requires her to do something which can harm the baby. I don't think any woman is required to declare it which is certainly very patronizing and downright discriminating to say the very least.
I am pretty surprised how an HR forum is ready to quote laws to restrain but doesn't dwell on theories to grow their employees. If a job requires her to sit and respond to emails or make a few phone calls, then a simple provision of a laptop and Internet Connection will resolve the issue. The company will earn a loyal employee. Unfortunately no amount of recruitment process designed by IIT/IIM/Harvard can buy a loyal employee from the market.
Having faith in people is often the most over-stated theory in HRD, From what I have read so far is no evidence being provided in justifying the claim that she has defrauded the company apart from the fact she didn't declare she was pregnant. To my mind that ain't fraud by any stretch of imagination. Otherwise let me know what is the fraud with the evidence rather than a rhetorical statement.
From India, Bangalore
1Further, was non performance amounting to negative impact / loss of customer or just less efficient. The answers to some extent would be influenced by that.
In general, she has worked more than 80 days before delivery date and is entitled to maternity benefit. As per the act you can not terminate her till the end of her pregnancy. So you are stuck with her. You can terminate her only in April.
She is smart, and probably planned this. You guys are taken for suckers, so now you don't have an option but to pay her salary and maternity benefit under the act.
________________________
I am surprised at the assertion the lady in question was someone who came with an intent to defraud. The first line clearly indicates you have no knowledge about the circumstances. Unfortunately, the third line is a judgement without having a shred of evidence.
Being pregnant is not a crime by itself unless the role requires her to do something which can harm the baby. I don't think any woman is required to declare it which is certainly very patronizing and downright discriminating to say the very least.
I am pretty surprised how an HR forum is ready to quote laws to restrain but doesn't dwell on theories to grow their employees. If a job requires her to sit and respond to emails or make a few phone calls, then a simple provision of a laptop and Internet Connection will resolve the issue. The company will earn a loyal employee. Unfortunately no amount of recruitment process designed by IIT/IIM/Harvard can buy a loyal employee from the market.
Having faith in people is often the most over-stated theory in HRD, From what I have read so far is no evidence being provided in justifying the claim that she has defrauded the company apart from the fact she didn't declare she was pregnant. To my mind that ain't fraud by any stretch of imagination. Otherwise let me know what is the fraud with the evidence rather than a rhetorical statement.
From India, Bangalore
My My !
What a response !
I wonder where you did your HR training from.
There is no enough details in the mail to give us clear and complete knowledge of the circumstances. I am happy to be accused of now knowing the circumstances (its not my company, i dont work there) than to give half baked feedback and suggestions without finding out the actual details.
Companies run business, not charity. It makes no sense for them to employ someone who is going to be on paid leave few months after joining, or who will need to be given restricted work (its specified in the act, btw) and be given the full salary. They would be wiling to do that for someone who has worked there for a reasonable amount of time, not for someone who has just joined, and will probably take full advantage of the law on maternity leave and then not bother to come back to work after her full level of benefit is exhausted. if the circumstance were different, the original query would not even have been asked. Anyway, the response of the employee in question show clearly what type of a person she is. The later posts also state that she stopped working seriously after her pregnancy was confirmed. There is nothing to say that her performance gap is due to illness or pregnancy related stress.
I am glad you were able to enlighten us that the job only requires her to make phone calls and send emails. The original post does not say so. So i assume there was some information that was communicated to you directly ?
[QUOTE=Sajr2;2212815]
From India, Mumbai
What a response !
I wonder where you did your HR training from.
There is no enough details in the mail to give us clear and complete knowledge of the circumstances. I am happy to be accused of now knowing the circumstances (its not my company, i dont work there) than to give half baked feedback and suggestions without finding out the actual details.
Companies run business, not charity. It makes no sense for them to employ someone who is going to be on paid leave few months after joining, or who will need to be given restricted work (its specified in the act, btw) and be given the full salary. They would be wiling to do that for someone who has worked there for a reasonable amount of time, not for someone who has just joined, and will probably take full advantage of the law on maternity leave and then not bother to come back to work after her full level of benefit is exhausted. if the circumstance were different, the original query would not even have been asked. Anyway, the response of the employee in question show clearly what type of a person she is. The later posts also state that she stopped working seriously after her pregnancy was confirmed. There is nothing to say that her performance gap is due to illness or pregnancy related stress.
I am glad you were able to enlighten us that the job only requires her to make phone calls and send emails. The original post does not say so. So i assume there was some information that was communicated to you directly ?
[QUOTE=Sajr2;2212815]
From India, Mumbai
Dear learned members,
The last post that Deepthi has given was on 25-Feb-2015. Thereafter, she has gone incommunicado. As a originator, she should have participated occasionally and given clarifications. Therefore, there is no point in squabbling among the respondents. We are expressing our views in the interest of Deepthi but if she is not interested then why to waste our time and energy in typing the replies? My reply to her has also gone unanswered. Let us concentrate on other threads where needy members are waiting for the responses from seniors.
Since the thread has taken very different turn, I deem it fit to close the thread.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
The last post that Deepthi has given was on 25-Feb-2015. Thereafter, she has gone incommunicado. As a originator, she should have participated occasionally and given clarifications. Therefore, there is no point in squabbling among the respondents. We are expressing our views in the interest of Deepthi but if she is not interested then why to waste our time and energy in typing the replies? My reply to her has also gone unanswered. Let us concentrate on other threads where needy members are waiting for the responses from seniors.
Since the thread has taken very different turn, I deem it fit to close the thread.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Please treat her with respect. Other people in the organization are watching you. There is nothing called "Non Performer" no one leaves home spends 9 hours in office "not to perform" Give her tasks she embraces, engage her, be positive with her. She will respond.
Let's say Deepthi, you are in same situation, what would you want your employer to do with you? do that.
Let's say Deepthi, you are in same situation, what would you want your employer to do with you? do that.
As per Maternity Act, no woman employee can be removed on the basis of pregnancy or for any reason during the pregnancy period. If it is done, it is not valid in law. You can book a case against the employer for violating the Act and criminal case for humiliating during the pregnancy period by removing her from service on the basis of unsatisfactory work.
D.Gurumurthy
From India, Hyderabad
D.Gurumurthy
From India, Hyderabad
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONER.pdf
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc