Contractor Termination

scottorr

This morning, I terminated a contarctor. He was in Canada over the weekend and lost his laptop which contained highly sensitive materials. Now I am getting some flack from the IT department. Of course this means that they will have a little extra work terminating his access. The department that he was working with still wanted to keep him. Am I wrong? I know legally we are okay but would you have done the same?

Crout

Something like that should not have been your call. It should have fallen to the department head the contractor was working for, with your input. It's a judgement call either way. On the other hand, it's great for you that your company invests that kind of authority in your position.

scottorr

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-27-03 AT 12:19PM (CST)[/font][p]With my company confidentiality is huge. Any violation is grounds for termination. This particular contractor lost his laptop Friday night and did not report it missing until today. Granted the information is protected but most hackers can find a way around most systems.

I am responsible for all contractors along with the enforcement of our code of conduct policy.

Don D

I agree with Crout. Whereas policy and procedure guidance and recommendation and ensuring that T's are crossed in terminations should all be HR functions; termination should not be an HR call in most cases, and rarely if ever should it be independently decided by HR. From the outside looking in, I feel that HR should have met with the approprite department head, even perhaps with IT/IS to assess damage control and the particular violation, if it was one. Losing something typically is not a policy violation in and of itself. A good contractor is hard to find and losing something sounds, on the surface, to be an 'itchy trigger finger' reaction. If you are concerned now about "Was I right?", there seems to be a need for an overall assessment of your personal procedures. Regardless of our level of responsibility or the authority the employer invests in us, termination should rarely if ever be an immediate reaction or a decision reached independent of the interaction with others.

scottorr

The decision was not completely independent, other department heads felt the same as I did. However the final decision rested with me. The confidential information was not just reports or trade secrets, it conatined much more important information than that. The contractor's lap top contained information that could effect the safety of the NE region of the country. Our policy specifically states that if any equipment is lost or stolen it is to be reported immediately. Our security staff work 24/7 so he could have reported it over the weekend. He was not terminated because he lost something, he was terminated for violating a policy. I know it seemed harsh but given the circumstance, I felt it was best.

POPEYE

>I know it seemed harsh but given the circumstance, I felt it was best.

You again used the pronoun "I". I agree with the previous posts that the last thing we need to have HR perceived as is the TERMINATOR. We struggle each and every day to gain respect and to be viewed as a vital part of an organization. From some of your previous posts, including having guards at each of your entrances, it sounds like you are a large company and should have other management levels to handle terminations after consulting with you.

scottorr

The actual termination was presented by the department supervisor not me. We had a 7:30 meeting this morning to talk about it. Based on what our management staff discussed, which included my input, I informed the supervisor that we (the organization) were terminating this contractor. Part of my job description is making final determinations on these issues for contractor staff.

Don D

>This morning, I terminated a contarctor. He was in Canada over the
>weekend and lost his laptop which contained highly sensitive
>materials. Now I am getting some flack from the IT department. Of
>course this means that they will have a little extra work terminating
>his access. The department that he was working with still wanted to
>keep him. Am I wrong? I know legally we are okay but would you have
>done the same?


Scott: A rather crude Southern saying, when one feels he is getting nowhere or has a less than significant impact on a situation, is to characterize himself as 'farting in a whirlwind'. That's where I feel the thread is going. You initially asked, and I quote, "Am I wrong? Would you have done the same?" With each piece of advice as to how it should or might have been handled differently, you have countered with an argumentative defense of your same position. So, I for one feel caught up in the whirlwind. I can't speak for others though.

scottorr

I think you are right. I guess I was look more for re-assurance rather than looking for advice, and when I didn't get it, my response was defensive.

hrbanker

In our company the department heads consult with HR on all terminations. As HR, my job is to protect the company and to make sure these things are handled in a fair manner and that we are consistant with our discipline. As long as you haven't handled similar situations in a different manner, I'd say you did the right thing. (We termed a manager recently, not for a large outage, but for not reporting it in a timely manner.)

I tend to take terminations personally, too, feeling like "I" did it, when in reality the employee did it to themselves.