> The deal was that I basically had 6 months to prove myself, and if everyone felt like it was working out (myself included) this would be bumped into full-time with benefits.
In the UK, we sort of have this in the form of probation - in most permanent jobs, you don't gain full employment rights until you've done a probationary period, which is usually six months. You get full salary and benefits during that period, but you can be fired with no notice at any time (or something like that).
In practice, though, the culture is not to use the probationary period as an extended interview, but more of a backstop against really screwing up hiring. You'd only let someone go after probation if they turned out to be absolutely incompetent or unsuitable, not if they were just disappointing.
It would be interesting to try using probation differently, though. Make the interview more of a screen, employ twice as many people as you need, only retain half of them at the end of probation, and be explicit throughout that this is the plan. I suspect you could implement and communicate this such that it wasn't absolutely horrible for probationers - active and transparent review during probation, one or two months' golden parachute, what else?
In Ontario, the letter of the law says you can be fired during probation for any or no reason (modulo human rights legislation), but in practice an employer can still be sued for wrongful dismissal if the employer terminates an employee without demonstrating cause.
It’s best to have experienced employment law advice when devising any scheme around using probation as a kind of hiring scheme, as opposed to as a last resort if things go very badly.
I will not give legal advice, but for example I would be very careful before implementing a “Survivor: Tech Island” scheme where the company hires more people than it genuinely expects to keep following their probationary period.
I have been told that if I hire someone I think is questionable with the thought that “if it doesn’t work out, we’ll just let them go during probation,” that can backfire as I make a conscious choice to hire them despite my reservations.
Again, INAL, but I would tread carefully around using probation for winnowing candidates out.
IANAL either, but my understanding is that wrongful dismissal is breach of contract, whereas unfair dismissal is illegal [1]. So if you write this procedure into your contracts, and then follow it, it's not wrongful dismissal. To be unfair, for a probation period of less than two years, it would have to be meet one of the criteria for being "automatically unfair", which are basically about the employer doing illegal things, or be discrimination [2].
I would also be very careful before implementing a scheme like this - as you say, you would want to have it thoroughly checked by legal and HR experts.
I think you’re right about the distinction between wrongful and unfair dismissal, but if I understand Ontario common law correctly, even in cases where the dismissal during probation is not illegal, and even when you have it in writing that the candidate can be dismissed for any or no reason, you may find yourself on the wrong side of a wrongful dismissal judgment and forced to pony up money.
It’s probably easier to structure such a thing as contract-to-permanent, and I suspect this is why there are a lot of such contracts around. Or at least, I have seen a number of such things in Ontario.
And now the counter-example: My brother is the principal Tuba with the National Arts Centre Orchestra. He had to win multiple auditions, resulting in two finalists being selected. Each of them then went and rehearsed and played a concert with the orchestra, they spent some weeks on contract, expenses and compensation paid. They selected my brother.
Full-time job? Nope! He then went on probation, either for a full year or two, I can’t remember. I’m sure he’d laugh at my worrying about 90 day probationary periods.
This seems kinda nuts to me. I don't think I would leave a stable position for a probationary position, or accept one if I had more stable offers. "It's ok, we probably won't use it" - uhh, what? No, that's what legal protection is for.
Is it really that common? I'm sure many companies try to hoist this on propsective employees but I'm surprised people accept it.
Can someone else from the UK verify this? Still seems crazy to me.
Edit: reading around it seems like they're standard, but have no legal weight regarding termination? I.e. you're entitled to 30 days pay regardless. This seems very weird on all sides.
Also from UK and can confirm that 30-day probation is pretty standard.
In 20 years, I think I've only seen employees terminated during their probation 2 times. They were non-dev roles, and both times it had transpired that they were totally incapable of the job (one had also lied on their CV).
Damn. That sucks. At least it isn't common, but I'd like some legal protection against it. Guess it's just a matter of minimising uncertainty for your employer & having the leverage to negotiate your contract.
In the UK, we sort of have this in the form of probation - in most permanent jobs, you don't gain full employment rights until you've done a probationary period, which is usually six months. You get full salary and benefits during that period, but you can be fired with no notice at any time (or something like that).
In practice, though, the culture is not to use the probationary period as an extended interview, but more of a backstop against really screwing up hiring. You'd only let someone go after probation if they turned out to be absolutely incompetent or unsuitable, not if they were just disappointing.
It would be interesting to try using probation differently, though. Make the interview more of a screen, employ twice as many people as you need, only retain half of them at the end of probation, and be explicit throughout that this is the plan. I suspect you could implement and communicate this such that it wasn't absolutely horrible for probationers - active and transparent review during probation, one or two months' golden parachute, what else?