JOB ABANDONMENT-HELP!!
System
5,885 Posts
We have an ee who has not shown up for 2days, no call, can we legally term her or do we have to wait 3days total??
System
5,885 Posts
Comments
We are an employment at will state.. LA. The BIG issue is that she says she has cancer (But our documentation tells us otherwise) that is what is the big monkey wrench, does she fall into a protected class?
We do have a policy that 2 days of no call, no show is considered a self-termination. If your state does not dictate a waiting period, then it is up to you.
All these questions should be addressed. Is the ee "at-will"
Marty
Don't panic. I'm assuming that there isn't anything in her med. file that might state she can be away from work or on a reduced work schedule & she's somehow misinterpreted it's meaning x;-) Here's what I would do - see if it works for you. I wouldn't be worried about any type of protected status, because I would call the ee at home & if I couldn't reach her, I would call her emergency contacts & try to reach her through them. I would document the calls/attempts (include dates and time) & if I reached her, I would tell her to get into work & write her up for her absences. If I didn't reach her, since you don't have a 3-day policy, I would term. for abandonment & I would staple the paper where I documented how many times I tried to reach her & the phone numbers I called.
I don't like the 3-day policy for this exact situation, we have a 1-day rule & a call-in by 9:00 a.m. if an ee is going to be absent. If the call comes later or not at all - a term. letter is sent out.
Happy New Year around The Big Easy!
HOWEVER - even after an employee has established an FMLA-qualifing condition, we still hold employees to the absence reporting requirements in our attendance policy. We have terminated employees for three days no call no show, even though they have come back later and attributed the unreported absences to FMLA. We may be treading on the edge with this, but we haven't lost a grievance or EOC charge yet under these circumstances.
Send a letter ordering the emplyee back to work. Inform him that his absence is unauthorized (and with pay) as of the first day whenever that was since he has not reported any need to be absent or called into work to explain his absence...and that he is to return to work no later than his regular starting time (be specific) on x date (give it two days from mailing). If he does not return to work as ordered, he will be discharged.
Further that if he does return to work as ordered, he is subject to disciplinary action for the unauthorized absence and failure to contact his supervisor and that the disciplinary action can include discharge.
Put a contact number if the has any questions.
Give him specific deadlines.
Send the letter out by certified mail, return receipt request, and a copy out via reguular first class mail to the last address of record.
This may be more than you need to do in at will situations, but I suspect it will save the company the UI costs if he files a UI claim for termination.
"Send a letter ordering the emplyee back to work. Inform him that his absence is unauthorized (and with pay) as of the first day whenever that was since he has not reported any need to be absent or called into work to explain his absence...and that he is to return to work no later than his regular starting time (be specific) on x date (give it two days from mailing). If he does not return to work as ordered, he will be discharged."
Now, the employee has already been absent without calling for two days. It is suggested that we now write that person a letter giving them another several days to decide whether or not to report to work ("two days from date of mailing"). The real kicker, and the part that blows me totally out of the water, is the recommendation to PAY this person in their absence, while they decide what they might do.
But, I must remember two things. The recommendation is (1) from the public sector, and (2) from California.
I sincerely hope you all find a warm memory or funny story in your recollections of 2003 and that you all have a great 2004.
This has been an interesting thread; wish I'd stumbled over it sooner.
Even public sector in California doesn't require an emplyee to be paid under this situation if the absence is unauthorized.
Whether the "rising star" comment is true remains to be seen, but my personal philosophy is that rising stars are held up by some sort of support mechanism. Without the proper support, a rising star would fall to the ground.
I think I hear the faint rumblings of groaning in the distance. Thanks for the guidance y'all never knew you gave!
I was offering up a different alternative to make sure there is a viable termination. If you're in at will, where management can get away with more arbitrary but legal actions, then "who cares" about what I suggested and you should fire the employee right now (and throw away the company's investment in the employee).
>After 20 years working in an union environment
>and public sector with terminations being
>subject to forms of "binding arbitration" I can
>tell you that the practice I identifiied will
>work more cleanly in those types of enviornment
>than what Don proposed.
I've worked in public sector and union environments for 34 years. Is that really relevant?