Hello All,
One of our employees went on leave for three days as his grandfather is in ICU. We have approved his three days' leave; however, he just joined one month ago and is on a probation period. Now, he is asking for approval of 20 days' leave which is not possible for us as he did not hand over his work. He also said that if these leaves are against company policy, then he will resign from his role without serving any notice period. In that case, his bond will also be applicable, but he is blaming the company for threatening him regarding the bond and handover process.
Kindly suggest what we should do in this case?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
One of our employees went on leave for three days as his grandfather is in ICU. We have approved his three days' leave; however, he just joined one month ago and is on a probation period. Now, he is asking for approval of 20 days' leave which is not possible for us as he did not hand over his work. He also said that if these leaves are against company policy, then he will resign from his role without serving any notice period. In that case, his bond will also be applicable, but he is blaming the company for threatening him regarding the bond and handover process.
Kindly suggest what we should do in this case?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear HR,
Bond and other formalities become active when the employee completes the probation period and is updated as a regular employee. It is least effective during probation as the employee is considered under training; however, the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) is implemented immediately upon joining.
Ask the employee's immediate reporting head to communicate with them. If the head finds the employee's reasons genuine, consider allowing some unpaid leave, contingent upon the work's flexibility to be assigned to another individual.
Medical emergencies can happen to anyone and should be handled with a lenient view.
Thank you.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
725Bond and other formalities become active when the employee completes the probation period and is updated as a regular employee. It is least effective during probation as the employee is considered under training; however, the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) is implemented immediately upon joining.
Ask the employee's immediate reporting head to communicate with them. If the head finds the employee's reasons genuine, consider allowing some unpaid leave, contingent upon the work's flexibility to be assigned to another individual.
Medical emergencies can happen to anyone and should be handled with a lenient view.
Thank you.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear HR-Intellial,
You have two options: one is to grant him a "Leave Without Pay," and the 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 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 as well. 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 if he still 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 for leave on compassionate grounds.
However, you have written that "In that case his bond also applicable." If the employee has recently joined 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 the lock-in period in the appointment letter, then it is absolutely a one-sided contract and may not stand the scrutiny of the law in 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have two options: one is to grant him a "Leave Without Pay," and the 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 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 as well. 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 if he still 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 for leave on compassionate grounds.
However, you have written that "In that case his bond also applicable." If the employee has recently joined 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 the lock-in period in the appointment letter, then it is absolutely a one-sided contract and may not stand the scrutiny of the law in 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 administrative matters should take place through the HR department and not directly by the reporting authority. The HR Department may seek concurrence from the HOD, but communication must be routed through HR. If the HODs start communicating with their subordinates on administrative matters, then what is the purpose of having an HR department? HODs are expected to limit their communication with subordinates to matters concerning their department's work.
Occasionally, decisions from top management are communicated to the HODs, and they are instructed to cascade the information down to their subordinates. However, this is considered an exception.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 administrative matters should take place through the HR department and not directly by the reporting authority. The HR Department may seek concurrence from the HOD, but communication must be routed through HR. If the HODs start communicating with their subordinates on administrative matters, then what is the purpose of having an HR department? HODs are expected to limit their communication with subordinates to matters concerning their department's work.
Occasionally, decisions from top management are communicated to the HODs, and they are instructed to cascade the information down to their subordinates. However, this is considered an exception.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Dinesh Divakar,
As the post mentions that the employee "did not hand over his work well," here the HR and HOD are secondary. The immediate reporting head is primary on the list, who failed to collect reports on a routine basis. Officially, the process is correct to communicate through HR; however, the management has to get just a few words from the immediate reporting senior also for this lapse.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As the post mentions that the employee "did not hand over his work well," here the HR and HOD are secondary. The immediate reporting head is primary on the list, who failed to collect reports on a routine basis. Officially, the process is correct to communicate through HR; however, the management has to get just a few words from the immediate reporting senior also for this lapse.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 hand over 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 about. I have put this thought just because retaining such a person would create problems in the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.