The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Letter Options
Amybal
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:55:52 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/8/2018
Posts: 134
Neurons: 795
Hi, I need some feedback on the email below. Please let me know if you find difficulty in understating this letter?

REF: NOTICE OF TERMINATION

Please be advised that we have been notified that you were absent from your work for a period of (date) to (date), without any prior leave or permission obtain from the management.

However, upon inquiry we were notified that you had been arrested for some criminal offence, at the (location) .

We also take notice that you have commenced your work on after being released from any conviction by the authorize.

However, our company policy is to not employ persons with alleged involvement in crime, so we regret to inform you that your employment with us is terminated with immediate effect.

Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:28:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,077
Neurons: 166,929
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hi Amybal.
There are a few errors - some are simply the wrong word (vocabulary errors) some are more 'grammar errors'.

The first is in your question - I'm sure you mean "if you find difficulty in understanding this letter."

Also, "Please let me know if you find difficulty in understanding this letter" is not a question - it is a request - it should end in a full stop, not a question mark.

The general vocabulary usage is good - it is a very 'official' e-mail, and the use of formal English is correct.

Please be advised that we have been notified that you were absent from your work for a period of (date) to (date)
"For a period of" is followed by a length of time - "for a period of four days" or "for a period of three weeks".
You could also say "you were absent from your work from (date) to (date)" - but not you were absent from your work for a period of (date) to (date).

without any prior leave or permission obtain from the management.
This needs the verb-form "obtained" - the past participle, not the infinitive "obtain".

However, upon inquiry we were notified that you had been arrested for some criminal offence, at the (location) .
This is OK. Depending on the location, you may not need the "the".

We also take notice that you have commenced your work
I don't think this breaks any rules, but the usage of 'take notice' is unusual.
Normally, "take notice" is used in requests - "please take notice that . . ." is similar to "Please be advised that . . ."
I would expect "We also note that . . ." for a simple statement like this.

on after being released from any conviction by the authorize.
You do not need both 'on' and 'after' - one or the other (they mean almost the same thing, in this case).
I think you mean "authorities" not "authorize".

However, our company policy is to not employ persons with alleged involvement in crime, so we regret to inform you that your employment with us is terminated with immediate effect.

This is good, in my mind. Some people would complain about "to not employ" and say that it should be "not to employ".

EDITED to add the following and to correct some punctuation above.

I'm sorry my post ended abruptly, I was called away.

I feel that, if the 'not' is placed first, it sound like you are saying what your policy is not - "We do not have a policy 'We should employ people who are accused of crimes.'
If the 'not' is used within the infinitive, it sound more like "We have a policy 'We do not employ people accused of crimes.'"
They are not exactly the same.

I would probably re-word "released from any conviction by the authorities" - though I don't think there's anything ungrammatical, it sounds a little 'odd'. I think this is just an unusual phrasing - I've changed it to more 'common' phrases.

***********
On another subject - in Britain (and in the USA and many other countries) it is the law that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.
It would be illegal to fire someone for being accused. A company would be permitted to suspend from duty someone until they were tried. If they were found guilty, then they might be fired. If they were found innocent, they would have to be given their job back.

*********
REF: NOTICE OF TERMINATION

Please be advised that we have been notified that you were absent from your work from (date) to (date), without any prior leave or permission obtained from the management.

However, upon inquiry we were notified that you had been arrested for some criminal offence, at the (location) .

We also note that you have re-commenced your work on being released from detention by the authorities.

However, our company policy is to not employ persons with alleged involvement in crime, so we regret to inform you that your employment with us is terminated with immediate effect.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Amybal
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 4:46:15 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/8/2018
Posts: 134
Neurons: 795
Hi Drag0nspeaker,

Thank you so much for helping me to correct this letter. Appreciate it. I just adore the way you explain the error for each and every line, it makes me to understand very well. Thanks again.
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:08:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,392
Neurons: 71,740
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Not disagreeing with DargO sir , but for clarification and in my opinion, in the last line the word 'employ' should be replaced with 're-employ' and alleged should be replaced with 'convicted'

However, our company's policy is to not re-employ persons convicted of crime, so we regret to inform you that your employment with us is terminated with immediate effect.



Alleged is redundant. He has been convicted as per the statement.

'Alleged' means not confirmed. It is yet an allegation. When the accused has not been convicted yet he is called the accused, when found guilty and sentenced , he is a convict.

Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 4:40:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,077
Neurons: 166,929
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hi Ashwin.

That was my reason for changing "released from any conviction" to "released from detention".

I THINK the original was meant to say that the person had been "detained on suspicion", but then released - not convicted (released from conviction).
It's a bit ambiguous.

I decided it must mean that because they used 'alleged' in the last line - saying that the person had never been convicted (or even tried).

I agree with you - if the person was actually tried and convicted and had a jail sentence, then "alleged" is false.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.