can i terminate my employee immediately?

[puppylove2357]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California


We had our new employee sign a probation contract stating that we can fire her at any time in a 3 month period for any reason by providing her with a 2 weeks written notice of termination. However, she has broken several rules (some safety and health)which are cause for immediate termination. Do we still have to provide her with 2 weeks written notice?

 

[cbg]

I can't read the "probation contract" from here.

So my suggestion would be that you have a California attorney read it and then ask him or her that question.

 

[adjusterjack]

she has broken several rules (some safety and health)which are cause for immediate termination. Do we still have to provide her with 2 weeks written notice?

Does your contract give you an out for breaking rules?

 

[cbg]

For the record, it is rarely a good idea for the employer to have a two-week-notice requirement. If you reach the point where you want to fire someone, telling them that they're going to be fired in two weeks leaves the disgruntled employee a whole lot of time to sabotage things. I once had to salvage what I could after I came as HR director the day AFTER they fired someone, and gave her fifteen minutes to collect her things. In that fifteen minutes, she did $2000 worth of damage to equipment, cancelled all the travel arrangements for the senior staff for the rest of the year (it was October - and those boys traveled a lot) and deleted several key files. If she could do all that in fifteen minutes, imagine what an employee with nothing to lose could do in two weeks.

What you might want to consider is terming her immediately but paying her for the two weeks. That way you're covered in the event that you really do have a binding contract, but she's not on site committing sabotage.

 

[quincy]

For the record, it is rarely a good idea for the employer to have a two-week-notice requirement. If you reach the point where you want to fire someone, telling them that they're going to be fired in two weeks leaves the disgruntled employee a whole lot of time to sabotage things. I once had to salvage what I could after I came as HR director the day AFTER they fired someone, and gave her fifteen minutes to collect her things. In that fifteen minutes, she did $2000 worth of damage to equipment, cancelled all the travel arrangements for the senior staff for the rest of the year (it was October - and those boys traveled a lot) and deleted several key files. If she could do all that in fifteen minutes, imagine what an employee with nothing to lose could do in two weeks.

What you might want to consider is terming her immediately but paying her for the two weeks. That way you're covered in the event that you really do have a binding contract, but she's not on site committing sabotage.

I am curious why any employer would include a two-week-notice clause in a contract.

If puppylove violates the terms of the contract s/he has with the employee (and that includes violating a two-week-notice clause and can also include any oral contract entered into with the employee), the employee could have a supportable breach of contract claim to pursue.

The contract would have to be personally reviewed by an attorney in California but, if such a clause exists or oral promises made, puppylove has to be very careful how s/he handles the employee's termination. This might mean puppylove will have to provide a two-week-leave with pay before the employee's employment can be terminated. Her employment should not be terminated, though, until the contracted-notice is given (depending, of course, on how the contract is worded).

 

[cbg]

I agree. Definitely an attorney needs to review the document in question and determine (first) is it actually a contract at all and (second) if so, whether there are any options for letting her go without notice. I suggested paying out the time as a possible option but there's no question he needs to talk to an attorney first.

I can understand why someone who is trying to be a good employer and doesn't have much experience with it might think a notice clause to be a good thing but they're not a good idea for a lot of reasons. If there's nothing wrong with the employee's work but there are financial issues, it ties you into continuing to pay them for another two weeks, and if there is a problem with them, the reasons above will explain why it's a bad idea. Not to mention the trap the OP finds himself in.