There are reasons

A company can't just sack you, if there is not documented evidence of misbehaviour or perhaps evidence of crime. Being laid off is not necessarily a bad thing, such that u cannot reference the company on your CV. The firm could be cutting cost and decides to relieve a few employees of their duties. Its not the employee's fault. So I don't see how this affects his career.

Those who have read the maffia manager would understand what the above firm is trying to achieve - they want to avoid severance package and a possible litigation.

So except he was sacked on account of misconduct or crime, then he shouldn't resign.

Resignation is better than sack on the long tho the two still means you are out of job but on a new cv sack shows your incompetency..

kowema:
Giving you the opportunity the resign in a case where you services are no longer needed is actually a favour..

It's not about money but long term. Imagine working in a company and getting sacked after 5 Years.
Referencing that company in your Cv might be a hard decision and if you don't, It becomes five long years unaccounted for. Asking you to resign is giving you the opportunity to go out there and say You left and then you find a reason to give your interviewer

Kisses.

Spots on

This is dicey here, it all depends on the reasons for the sack and if there are other benefits attached to it.

Sack is not a good thing, it could tell on ur labour turnover.

And resignation would have gotten u some goodies if u were sacked(downsizing) but check well to make sure they ain't gonna hang any crime on u later.

As an HR Personnel, from my worth of experience here in my company we also advice employee to resign instead sack, this is a WIN-WIN situation btw the 2 parties, firm is trying to be on a safer side while also giving the employee a good chance of getting another better job having resign.

ofcourse the employer has liability.

if I was the man I'd probably go with my lawyer and ask for a superb letter of recommendation as a condition of resigning otherwise I will just sue them for wrongful termination and collect enough money to set up a big farm.

og2711:


Sack is different from being laid off. If you were laid off (for Eg. Due to the economy or lack of business), that is where you get the maximum remuneration. So if you were called back to resign after being laid off, then yes, they want to reduce the money they pay as you get much less when you resign.

Sack however is usually for some sort of disciplinary action (Eg. After fighting or stealing) and you get paid nothing whatsoever. This also tarnishes your cv. So if you were called back to resign after being sacked, then they are doing you a favor..

This is the key message here. Laid off/retrenchment/redundancy is not the same as being fired/sacked.

When you have massive sack like you have in some banks, it is redundancy. And the law (labor act 1990) requires that certain payments be made to the affected persons. That is why the government asked the banks to pause their lay offs. Not because they can control who is sacked but to ensure the terms are properly defined and such affected staff getting their proper benefit. There is also nothing wrong with telling a potential employee you were affected by redundancy.

If, however, the person calls the person back to resign, the company has succeeded in cheating him/her of his entitlements. This is wrong and unethical HR practice. All those involved can take out a class action suit against their former employer.

Before resigning, get a lawyer to study the circumstances surrounding the sack. The firm may have noticed the dangers and decided to get him to resign.

I doubt if they are willingly doing him any favour. Why didn't they ask him to resign before throwing out?

Nevertheless, there is no sack or resignation until there is either a sack or resignation letter.

kowema:
Giving you the opportunity the resign in a case where you services are no longer needed is actually a favour..

It's not about money but long term. Imagine working in a company and getting sacked after 5 Years.
Referencing that company in your Cv might be a hard decision and if you don't, It becomes five long years unaccounted for. Asking you to resign is giving you the opportunity to go out there and say You left and then you find a reason to give your interviewer

Poor advice.

There is no stigma attached to being laid off by a struggling company. Advising people to settle for reduced remuneration for dubious future benefits is rather strange

bigyomite:
As an HR Personnel, from my worth of experience here in my company we also advice employee to resign instead sack, this is a WIN-WIN situation btw the 2 parties, firm is trying to be on a safer side while also giving the employee a good chance of getting another better job having resign.

You are not addressing this particular situation. You have just talked about what can be done abinitio.

The Op is talking about an employee who is ALREADY sacked and called back to resign. Legally speaking, the second consideration must have been an afterthought on the part of the employer, seeing the dangers ahead.

If you were laid off as a result of redundancy, please don't resign as that will make the company not to pay your severance packages.
Study your terms and conditions of engagement, engage the service of a lawyer to help you understand some clauses in your employment offer letter and contract so that you can lay claims on your benefits.
Don't for the fear of reference letter cheat yourself of your own right!
You must not work for another company, you can create yours and become the employer of labour and convert your ideas and experience into wealth.

---

for relationship, dating and marriage counselling, visit www.amaraofficial.com

The OP above me has a point.

There is a difference if you are sacked for an offence, incompetence etc, but if it's redundancy and no fault of yours, then you dont need to resign. Collect all your benefits and move on.

The company will also gladly give you a reference as this will be stated in the termination letter that you were let go through no fault of yours.

Its a NO from me with some exceptions to Yes!
NO If he/she was retrenched for an unjustifiable reason i.e if the owner of the coy wakes up one day n get to office n retrench him/her for no good reason....in this case, I 'll be of the opinion that he/she seeks legal back up! Cos before anyone leaves/retires from a coy, he/she is expected to give a month notice prior to his/her due time to leave or forfeit his/her 1month pay (dat which he/she has last work). So every sane n responsible coy should know the ryt thing to do....not to call back the staff to come n resign.

YES if he/she was retrenched for a justifiable reason (lack of adequate experience, adamant to learning new techniques related to the job, fraudulent activities etc) and was given a month prior notice to get things fixed.

MODIFIED......#jezmaopinion

abeg if you committed an offence, kindly resign, if no, then let them lay you off, don't apply sentiment here, lying is something so difficult to do, especially during an interview.
how do you explain your boss telling you to resign when you committed no offense during an interview?
the pay is also higher if they are to show the way out for no crime of yours.

kowema:
Giving you the opportunity the resign in a case where you services are no longer needed is actually a favour..

It's not about money but long term. Imagine working in a company and getting sacked after 5 Years.
Referencing that company in your Cv might be a hard decision and if you don't, It becomes five long years unaccounted for. Asking you to resign is giving you the opportunity to go out there and say You left and then you find a reason to give your interviewer

Please give me work. Confirmed HR personnel

kowema:
Giving you the opportunity the resign in a case where you services are no longer needed is actually a favour..

It's not about money but long term. Imagine working in a company and getting sacked after 5 Years.
Referencing that company in your Cv might be a hard decision and if you don't, It becomes five long years unaccounted for. Asking you to resign is giving you the opportunity to go out there and say You left and then you find a reason to give your interviewer

You're absolutely correct!

SaiBuharii:
If you are sacked, no reference. If you resign, there is reference. This is Somthing to ask ur neighbor. Not nairaland.

Nairaland z a family and being one any member dats confused can ask and get clarified besides it z nt just him dat z benefiting I am as well as some odas

Hello @ OP,

The scenario you just painted is not a sack but a retrenchment or redundancy.

To clarify a little more: If one is sacked because of disciplinary issues , he is not usually entitled to any benefit and it's stated in almost all employment letters globally. However, if one is retrenched or layed off based on redundancy( this is usually the case where there is a change of management , acquisition of the company or even a slump in sales and revenue of a certain department) he is entitled to a severance benefit.

Employers know the difference between both, and that's why they always ask : why did you leave your former job ? If he was retrenched or layed off due to organisation restructuring , I advise him not to resign , but collect his severance pay . It won't affect his career.

Guitarlife:

Ofcourse thats the sentiment employers pull over employees eyes.

However, we need to know from an authoritative source how much the firm is saving if you resign rather than they sacking you.

Atleast it will make for objectivity and I insist, the firm is likely trying to cut their severance wage bill.

lalasticlala mynd44 seun whats ur take ?

Provided you weren't sacked for any untoward behaviour, then you can always still put working on that firm on your CV.
It wasn't your fault they decided to downsize was it? and they cannot write any bad reference for you can they?
Those are just my thoughts anyway. I'm not an HR person, so what do I know?....

My dear, if you were disengaged due to economic meltdown then returning to resign is a big no no, you would have blocked your severance package, stop using the word sack ,you were not sacked.
If you resign, you are entitled to one month salary and if you had been paid any upfront, it would be deducted from it. Eventually you might end up owing the company if a large chunk of your upfront is not regularised.
But I am speaking from the bank perspective which I had worked before. Most time in the Nigerian labor market, references are presented by you, your best reference in this case would be the boss that you worked directly with and in this case , going back to resign is completely useless.
If you are disengaged, you can still make claims in the court of law for benefits and to be first reabsorbed when the company stabilizes.
Find out what exactly facilitated the calling back for resignation.

LOL. Nigerians and their servile way of thinking. The fact that you are being called back to resign should have alerted you to the possibility that the firm has something to gain.

Check your employment letter. Most times it is a contract between you and your employer and whoever breaks that contract without giving a notice of up to 3 months will have to pay the other party "damages". This is usually about 3 months salary. So it's resign with 3 months notice or your employer terminates your employment with 3 months notice or either party is liable to pay 3 months salary in lieu of the notice.

Be very careful. You may tender your resignation and find out you still have to pay your employer 3 months worth of salary.

Apart from the company trying not to pay much to the sacked employer, they are also trying to prevent a legal action.

Your post title does not corelate with the content.
You said he resigned but not that he was fired and later ask to come and resign. Anyway resigning is better option that sack.

vascey:

This is the key message here. Laid off/retrenchment/redundancy is not the same as being fired/sacked.
When you have massive sack like you have in some banks, it is redundancy. And the law (labor act 1990) requires that certain payments be made to the affected persons. That is why the government asked the banks to pause their lay offs. Not because they can control who is sacked but to ensure the terms are properly defined and such affected staff getting their proper benefit. There is also nothing wrong with telling a potential employee you were affected by redundancy.
If, however, the person calls the person back to resign, the company has succeeded in cheating him/her of his entitlements. This is wrong and unethical HR practice. All those involved can take out a class action suit against their former employer.

Spot on. You just said it all. We often mix up or misinterpret both concepts(Sack; professionally termed as DISMISSAL and TERMINATION of employment; which could be initiated by either party). If an employee is DISMISSED, in most cases such employee was involved in some form of unwholesome practices, the organization is not compelled to provide any form of severance package, Infact litigation might follow. If the organization decides to allow you resign, thank your stars. TERMIMATION is bi-faceted. First scenario is the one explained above.(in other words, termination could come in the form of dismissal). Second scenario is when an employee is laid off/a mass retrenchment due to economic factors affecting the company or other internal disturbances. Yes, TERMINATION is used but in such a case those affected should be adequately compensated as it's no fault of theirs and YES nothing stops you from referencing that same company in your next employment. When such is the case and the employer ask you to come resign , it's grossly unethical in HR practice. The company is doing you no favour by asking you to turn in your resignation letter. All these trash exist only in a country like ours where the Labour law is weak and hardly enforced.

Dear Op,
Kindly tell the fellow to check his/her appointment letter, there should be a part where it is written ;

''Either of the parties is liable to pay the other a certain percentage of his package if the party involve decides to terminate the contract without a certain notice period".

In trying to abstain from such payment, the company decided to revert to resignation, since they are the party that terminated the contract.

You accepting to resign means you are accepting to terminate the contract, and as such ; you are liable to compensate the company.

I know a lot of people are talking about recommendation and such. But who recommendation help?

The truth is most of this companies are only interested in using and dumping people after sucking you to dryness and emptiness.

Please do what your heart tells you but if I were in your shoes ( I've been there actually), I will not accept resignation.
Who knows when the next job will come ?

OP is confusing three different terms.

You are sacked when you breach the terms of your employment contract, the only recourse here is an appeal to a tribunal or a union which may or may not lead to being reinstated.

You are laid off when your services become surplus to their requirements, most times you will get some kind of financial remuneration based on years of service to the company.

You resign when you have either reached a certain age/served the maximum allowable term with the company or you choose to pursue other opportunities.

If i was told to come and resign after being sacked, I would not be in a rush to do so, there is a high probability the company has not adhered to all the terms of the contract and are in breach in some way. Get some sound legal advice if you find yourself in this position.

logica:
LOL. Nigerians and their servile way of thinking. The fact that you are being called back to resign should have alerted you to the possibility that the firm has something to gain.

Check your employment letter. Most times it is a contract between you and your employer and whoever breaks that contract without giving a notice of up to 3 months will have to pay the other party "damages". This is usually about 3 months salary. So it's resign with 3 months notice or your employer terminates your employment with 3 months notice or either party is liable to pay 3 months salary in lieu of the notice.

Be very careful. You may tender your resignation and find out you still have to pay your employer 3 months worth of salary.

You are absolutely right.
On how the op will pay the employer the 3 months worth of salary, they may decide to hold on to the salary of the last month he worked, or hold on to the expenses repayment he is expecting.

Guitarlife:
Good day,

I would appreciate the input of experienced HR personnel in analysing this issue of forced resignation.

What are the implications in terms of renumerational difference when compared to being scaked?

In terms of looking for anither job what truly is the difference between a sack and a resignation.

I work with one of the top organisations who laid off staff over the past couple of weeks.

My immediate boss was fired as well and was later asked to resign albeit a forced resignation.

He resigned with the impression that the resignation will look better on his CV than a sack.

I am of the opinion the organisation took this step to reduce their financial obligation.

Kindly advise on the best decision to take if faced with such a dilemna.

Resignation is better than sack BC resignation is voluntary n honourable while sack could b due to incompetence, unproductivity or criminal act

VocalWalls:



Baba, they might have the right to lay off, but he also deserves his severance package.

Who resignation letter help?

He needs his package to move on. Every other employer out there will be reasonable to understand he was laid off due to the economic meltdown, not because he committed a crime.

yes, he deserves it, but if wishes were horses....
My good sir, a good referral is what he needs to move on. Most companies follow up on past employment behavior, call or email past bosses to find out how their prospective employee really is. If the employee left with a fight, you can only imagine what they will say.
People are advising to lawyer up, in this case ehn....please consider such an action well, no company wanting to employ you will want a legal case waiting to happen. They wouldn't want you to do the same to them too.
The money will run out but your career still stands
I still think resignation is most beneficial. A win win like people have said here.

Treasuredlove:
yes, he deserves it, but if wishes were horses....
My good sir, a good referral is what he needs to move on. Most companies follow up on past employment behavior, call or email past bosses to find out how their prospective employee really is. If the employee left with a fight, you can only imagine what they will say.
People are advising to lawyer up, in this case ehn....please consider such an action well, no company wanting to employ you will want a legal case waiting to happen. They wouldn't want you to do the same to them too.
The money will run out but your career still stands
I still think resignation is most beneficial. A win win like people have said here.

I totally understand you. However, the pay really matters.
If it's enough for him to start up something and be his own boss, then he's likely not in he need for the referral.

Besides, some bad bosses will badmouth him, whether he resigned kr got laid off.

Lastly, it depends on the amount involved.