Interactive scenario: FMLA

[Marina]

Firing someone for not calling in to a specific Department can appear extreme unless you have a repeat offender and/or someone that has no regards for the company's policies and procedures. I would believe that the Manager who did the firing is on firm ground with the Legal department who eventually will have to be involved if the employee decides to sue. I would question if the Manager would do the same to an employee who has been nothing but an asset to the company and is possibly in line for a promotion.
Let the punishment fit the crime.

Additionally, the policies and procedures manual should be reviewed monthly and specific policies that can result in termination should have an area where the employee can sign and date.

Regarding the employee who called in to security, I would ask him if he asked to speak to HR. Possibility they were closed at the time he called. At a minimum, providing all required items were in check for the employer, and his answers appeared wishy washy and Informal reprimand or if you really feel there was disregard, a formal reprimand could be completed. The intent is to get the employee to do the right thing without letting it cause damage. Employees viewing the actions of Management as negative and unfair can cause your company to lose more money in low productivity, low moral, etc.

[naomi]

I would not fire the employee. In the hospital for 5 days? FMLA applies. Submitting proof that he was in the hospital, calling off (even though to the wrong area) would never fly in court. Give him a verbal for not following the rules to a tee, but I wouldn't even want to write him up for his absences.

lexapro dosage of 30 mg 104716 mizzou credit union =(( hepatitis c and zoloft >:-[[[ online signature loans 22779

I agree with what "Attorney" said. It appears that the manager fired the guy more out of frustration than anything else. Surely if the manager had taken the time to ask the employee why he had not contacted HR, his explanation of calling security (as long as it could be verified) should have mitigated the level of discipline.

And again, unless there are additional facts that we have not been made aware of, I don't see how HR would have sanctioned this discharge. The call-in policy should be firmed up with clear instructions as to who to call when-with alternate numbers given as well. As for our poor Jesse, I would give him a warning and advise him of all of the call-in options should he find himself in a similar situation down the road.

There are actually 3 problems in this scenario:

Problem #1. Jesse's manager should have contacted HR prior to firing Jesse to report the no-call no-show status (this could have happened as early as the first day) so that HR would have had the opportunity to investigate the situation prior to it coming to employment termination. What about the policy of involving HR prior to firing?

Problem #2. The security desk personnel should be trained to escalate any issues that they are not equipped to handle or respond to; i.e., the first day a call was received, the phone call respondant should have a) transferred the call to HR or b) notified his/her supervisor or HR if call transfer was not possible. The information needed to be passed on to an appropriate party.

Problem #3. Jesse was negligent in not calling the HR department; however, he made an effort to contact the employer, albeit not the correct one. If the policy clearly stated that a call to HR is required, discipline would be in order for this violation of policy.

Therefore, the following would be done:

1. Supervisor: Have a meeting to outline the process of involving HR if this had not been previously done. If it had been previously done, I would record this as an incident in case the supervisor does the same with another employee at another time.

2. Security: Reiterate the policy regarding escalation or establish a procedure to notify the employee that security personnel are not able to accept this type of information and the proper forwarding process.

3. Jesse: Once the firing had occurred, and after discovering calls had been made, I would have turned it into a suspension (part of the disciplinary process) and ensured that Jesse knew the procedures going forward.

I would require a medical certification from the employee's physician before allowing him to return to work. If the medical certification was supportive of his absence, I would consider the absence an FMLA-related event and grant the time off.

I would then discipline the employee for failing to follow the call-in procedure. But I certainly would not terminate the employee given the fact that he had a medical condition that is clearly an FMLA-qualifying event.

hertz credit cards with points 045353 how long to take xanax jgpj dram theater midi %O cheap cialis for you 2402 buy xanax with rx 148 health insurance mcguire and associates =-[[[

I agree with unregistered #16. Since it is the employer's responsibility to advise employees if they qualify for FMLA, it seems medical certification fromt he employee's physician would be enough to return the employee to work as an FMLA event. Also due process is key. Every employee deserves due process before any adverse action is taken. In this case, I think due process is absent. Due process implies there's some degree of investigation that takes place whereby the employee is provided an opportunity to convey their side of the story before disciplinary action is imposed. This investigation may query as to whether 1) the employee knew about the policy and understood the policy. Some employees are not able to read well enough to understand the policy. This may be especially true for foreign nationals 2) did the employee sign an acknowledge statement that they received the policy and would abide by its contents 3) if the employee understood the policy, then further investigation into why the employee did not call the HR department would follow.

Afterwards, I think termination would be excessive. A verbal warning combined with a review of the policy would be more appropriate, especially if an excessive record of absenteeism does not exist.