You Can't Fire Me - Case Study Example

Case Study: You Can’t Fire Me! Question the role that Mary’s past work performance could play in the case The previous records undoubtedly show that Mary is a top performer and has been contributing a great deal to the organizations productivity in general. Therefore, in the event that the organization is not satisfied with her work performance, then the performance evaluators can refer to her documented input or effort at the workplace. In this case, firing this particular employee must be handled carefully since she has been one of the top performers in the organization. The implication is that a proper preparation for firing or laying off employees should begin with the organizing the paperwork where the management looks at the performance evaluation, attendance sheets, disciplinary action forms among other documents (Li, Hung & Tangpong, 2012). A careful evaluation of these documents should show the reasons as to why an employee warrants being fired or not. Therefore, the management should have considered how Mary has had a good performance for the past years and evaluate if her absenteeism affected the companys performance in any way. Moreover, it is justifiable to look at her past work performance because records show that she always has genuine reasons for staying away from the job. On the other hand, despite her recurring illness, she has still been able to maintain good performance and even better than other employees. Therefore, her previous work performance must be put into consideration before making the decision to dismiss her from the job. The previous work performance is also important because Mary can use them in the court. In this case, the records will provide the evidence in any case the company is dismissing her because of poor work performance. Moreover, the previous work performance can also be documented by the organization so as to back up the decision of firing Mary because she has already filed a lawsuit. In this regard, her manager can refer to the percentage of her absenteeism and how it has affected the performance and overall productivity of the organization. When considering the job performance evaluation records, the aim is to ensure that there is consistency in both documents presented by the company and the employee (Sobieralski & Nordstrom, 2012). On the other hand, documentation of the correct performance records is necessary for the court battle as the defense or the prosecutor lawyer can use to convince the court against or in favor of the termination. In a nutshell, the previous job performance is important for both the employee and the organization in the legal battle. Question 2: Do managers have the right to know why employees refuse or agree to work overtime? In the absence of collective bargaining on the employment contract about overtime, employers are justifiable to require their workers to undertake overtime tasks especially when the business conditions necessitate the need for overtime (Steingold, 2013). In the case scenario, the overtime was scheduled spontaneously during the weekend where all other employees agreed to attend except Mary. However, the employment agreement had no such provisions thus the overtime was not legally binding. On the other hand, the company barely had a policy on overtime thus skipping the job could not have been a violation of the employment agreement. Besides, in the event a company has a mandatory overtime policy, the employees should be advised accordingly with clear statement of the consequences in case the employees violate the agreement (Jackson, Schuler & Werner, 2011). In the case scenario, again, there were not written policies on the implications of failing to undertake the overtime tasks. In this regard, the employer that is the management, has no right whatsoever to question the reasons for not doing the overtime tasks because there is no such binding contract to compel employees. Therefore, Mary can back her reason for not disclosing why she chooses to ignore the weekend overtime by citing reasons for the absence of the binding contract. Besides, it is necessary that employers should ensure that the overtime is scheduled fairly and does not coincide with the schedule of the employees (Steingold, 2013). On the other hand, employees should also have a space of their own because they also have the right to privacy. The implication is that the managers do not have the right to question reasons for absconding overtime duties, but it is upon the employees to choose to share with them and only if he or she is comfortable about sharing the personal problem. Maybe Mary had was pressed with a serious personal issue that she was uncomfortable sharing with the management. The bottom is that over time is not part of the employment contract unless there are policies for such provisions and managers have no right to force employees to non-existent employment terms (Steingold, 2013). In this case, dismissal for such absenteeism is a violation of employees rights thus he or she may be justified in filing a lawsuit to challenge the act. However, other employers treat the refusal to work the overtimes as violation of the employment terms and take appropriate actions (Steingold, 2013). In such contexts, the management demands to know the reason as to why an employee is not undertaking an overtime duty. Failure to provide genuine reason may risk the employee the particular job despite the job tasks not falling under the normal employment routine. On the contrary, such instances can be avoided if the management provides reasonable needs as to why the overtime is required. In the case scenario, the overtime was announced abruptly without clear reason as to why it was necessary. Therefore, unless managers provide genuine reasons for the overtimes, it should be optional to undertake such tasks if an employee has pressing personal issues that require full attention. Question 3: Evaluate the arguments of management and Mary in the case Mary filed the case on the ground that the management failed to warn her prior to being dismissed from the company. On the other hand, her claim is that the procedure did not follow the company’s disciplinary policy thus she was not wrongfully dismissed from the job. Mary argument in the case can tackled by looking at the role that employers play during the laying of the employees. In almost all the constitutions in the world, there are laws that government the actions that employers take against their workers including the decisions to lay them off (Sobieralski & Nordstrom, 2012). Therefore, managers are required to offer prior communication to the targeted employee before being offered warning about job performance or other issues like absenteeism. In this case, Mary is right to infer that her dismissal could be have been a subject of prior warnings upon which she could not improve then it would have been fair to dismiss her. However, how events unfold in the organization gives Mary the opportunity to file a legal suit because the overtime was meant to be done over the weekend, but her dismissal came the following Monday morning from a letter through the supervisor. In this case, going by the usual procedures, the management could have summoned Mary about her absenteeism and warned her of her poor attendance record. The implication is that the executive management should communicate certain issues like layoffs directly with the employees so that they cannot launch future complaints of not having been warned in a timely manner (Sobieralski & Nordstrom, 2012). The management is also justified for raising the concern for Marys poor work attendance and also has the mandate to take the necessary action. On the other hand, the appropriate action can only be taken if the management adheres to the policy regarding disciplinary actions against the employees (Sobieralski & Nordstrom, 2012). In this case, it was wrong for the management to argue that Mary violated company policies while at the same it the managers followed the wrong procedure to take the necessary action. Moreover, the management defends itself that Mary already knew about her health condition, and the situation would not change in future. In this regard, the management provides a genuine reason for the dismissal because records indicate that the employees attendance had been tremendously affected by the illness though the approach to the layoff is warrant a legal challenge. Question 4: voting on the case As a member of the complaint review team, it would be necessary to review the facts of the case before taking sides. Therefore, it would be vital to consider if the employee violated employment terms and policies of the organization. On the other hand, it would be vital to consider the employee’s past records to ensure that her profile documents any possible misconducts or bad behaviors within the organization. Besides, it would be imperative to consider other factors like the employees performance in the recent times as a way of finding out if there has been a shift in the work output. Another issue to consider with the employee is to look at her reasons for being absent. In this case, Mary had been providing genuine reasons for staying away from the job as this is confirmed by her supervisor. Nonetheless, as part of the review team, it would be necessary to identify facts presented by the management. However, close attention should be paid on the allegations of breach of contract, employee misconduct, and poor performance. In addition, the review team should identify any existing policies from the organization concerning overtime employment tasks. From the facts of the case, Mary had not breached any employment contract since the organization does not include overtime as terms of employment. In this case, the employee is right to file for complaint since her actions were not in any way going against the company policies. Besides, the way that the organization communicated the dismissal was outright disrespectful because the employee had stayed along with the organization and showed loyalty to the company. Furthermore, there was no any form of warning for absenteeism as part of the company’s policy. Therefore, the company failed to follow the appropriate procedures when dismissing the employee thus it is imperative to maintain that the company is liable and accountable for the improper dismissal (Sobieralski & Nordstrom, 2012). References Jackson, S., Schuler, R., & Werner, S. (2011). Managing Human Resources. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Li, J., Hung, K. T., & Tangpong, C. (2012). The role of agent conscientiousness and reciprocity norm in employee layoff decisions. Management Research Review, 35(5), 419-440. Sobieralski, J., & Nordstrom, C. R. (2012). An Examination of Employee Layoffs and Organizational Justice Perceptions. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 12(3/4), 11-20. Steingold, F. S. (2013). Employers Legal Handbook, The: Manage Your Employees & Workplace Effectively. Nolo. Read More