Employment laws in this country are insane. Probably. I wouldn’t really know, it’s not like I’m a lawyer or anything. However, when caught absolutely red handed with a personnel issue a lie something along the lines of this vein was spouted.
You definitely have to have very definite grounds to be able to fire someone with impunity. It can’t be because they have a weird smell, have been shagging around or you simply don’t like them. Or maybe you can, I don’t know what the rules of your organisation are regarding such matters. Inter-office liaisons of that nature may well be a firing offence because none of you know how to have any fun.
Essentially, you need to prove that the person in question simply isn’t very good at their job. However, you can’t just expect someone to take your word for it. There has to be quantifiable evidence that your employee is worse in their role than some average stranger on the street. The clear solution is that you tempt randomer in with promise of a free coffee or whatever and treat them both like laboratory mice. See which is better at negotiating their way through a maze to find cheese or an elusive stapler.
Anyway, this entirely faultless method of annual review simply wasn’t working out for a particular conglomerate we won’t name at this point in time. They decided that the easiest way of replacing its current work force was by poisoning the old lot. That way they’d be able to bring in new talent without having to worry about pensions. Sure, they’d have rather large pay outs in life assurance and all that but far less paperwork in the long run.
So colleagues blithely chatted on about last night’s telly without realising that the very water cooler that nourished them was also spelling their doom. I’m sure there are less convoluted ways of dealing with low performance issues. Maybe next time they’ll add stimulants rather than rat poison.