termination with no proof

gab

We have found some damage to an object. After an investigation, it comes down to one person who could have done it, but with no exact proof - no witnesses. We are afraid after confronting him, he will deny it - since he never brought it to our attention. The manager wants to terminate, but I am afraid that since there is no proof then we should not terminate. The manager is afraid if we don't, then anyone who causes any damage and doesn't admit to it with out any witnesses then it shows that they won't get into any trouble. What would you do?

ray a

Without proof I would not terminate. There is a chance your hunch is wrong then you've terminated the wrong person. I find usually ee's involved in serious wrong doing eventually are caught then justice is served.

Jaded

What would I do?

I'd have to know the following first:

How much monetary damage to "the object" was done?

Has similar damage to company property occurred before? and what action did you take?

Some people will never admit guilt (even when guilty) but that does not mean you cannot terminate them and still feel confident about taking that action.

A good thorough investigation will give you the answer...if, after researching all the facts, you believe there was no other reasonable explanation for the damage, then terminate.

I would never terminate an employee without confronting them and letting them give their side of the story. Most importantly, I would document every step of the investigation and have in writing the steps I took and the facts that lead up to the termination.

If, after the investigation, you don't feel the employee is quilty, let the manager know why .... he or she may have other reasons they want this person gone...you should base the decision on facts, not merely on "finger pointing."

Good luck!

Don D

I find myself in agreement with Raymond. You are worried that if you do not terminate, that would send a message to the employees that anybody who breaks something can get away with it. I totally disagree with that train of logic. What if you are terminating the wrong individual? What message does that send to the troops? It sends the message that when something like this happens a gunslinger will come in shooting and the first person that gets hit is gone. This is one of those situations where I would think to myself, "Now, what's the worst possible outcome this decision could possibly have?" The answers, I think are: The wrong person gets terminated. We lose the unemployment hearing. We are faced with a lawsuit and/or EEOC charge. Employees throughout the company are outraged because they think we acted too hastily. The boss is pointing his finger at the supervisor who is saying, "HR approved the whole thing. Have I given you enough to think about? Investigate. Conclude the investigation. See if the results are definitive enough to hang your hat on. If not, move on.

deniseE

The bottom line is DOCUMENTATION. Everytime you decide to terminate someone, imagine needing to defend the decision to the EEOC, or a UC judge, or whatever....if it doesn't stand up to the weight of evidence needed in these situations, then it doesn't stand up to termination.

As was mentioned before, dig a little deeper and see if the supervisor has other reasons for blaming this particular EE....you may have other, more solid ground for disciplinary action.

Finally, make sure you have a policy providing for the termination/discipline of an ee that destroys company property. it's always helpful to point to a piece of paper and say "you knew this was against the rules". It's especially helpful if that paper has the ee's signature on it.

JM in ATL

According to your posting you did investigate, but what concerns me is that you say one employee "could have" done it. COULD this employee have done it, or DID this employee do it?

What did this employee have to say about the damages when you did your investigation? And, if the damage wasn't intentional or negligent, why would you want to terminate?

Also, did your boss stop to think that maybe the employee didn't admit to damaging something b/c he was afraid he would lose his job? So darned if he does, darned if he doesn't, right?

If it were you who damaged something, how would you want management to handle it with you?

gab

You have a good point, but we have had previous accidents that had caused damaged and during the accident was due to negligence or not having proper safety equipment and have been suspended, but did not lose their job so he should not be afraid. The problem is it looks as though he is trying to cover it up and it could be because he put in for an upper level position and did not want that to reflect he chances. All the information points to his direction. Basically, the manager and the safety manager will be talking to him directly to see what he says and then base on that we will collectively talk. But I was on the same page as everyone else that if there is not any proof not to terminate. Just sometimes you need some reassurance that you are doing the correct thing - even if you know that the person is possibly getting away with something. Better to be safe than sorry.

Jaded

We use a form called an "Incident Report". All employees who damage company property or who were involved in an incident that involved damage to equipment or property are required to fill out this written report with 24 hours. This form asks the date of incident/place of occurrence/vehicle number if a company vehicle/time of incident/witnesses/a brief description of what occurred/list of damages. The employee signs it/the manager signs it and it is forwarded to our HR department. On the flip side of the form is the following: "List of Prior Incidents - Dates and Actions Taken":____.
A brief company statement states that "Employees who engage in unsafe work habits which result in damage to person or property are subject to disciplinary action as listed below:
___A. Verbal Warning
___B. Written Warning
___C. Total of _______days off w/o pay to commence on ___
___D. Restricted Driving Provileges "non-driving" status for _______days
___E. Other:
___F. Termination of employment.
The last section is "Recommended action to be taken" and is filled out by the Safety Director/HR Director and requires signatures and back up (documentation).
This helps us stay consistent and holds the employee responsible for admitting doing damage. (Most of the time people are given verbal or written warnings.) However, persistent offenders aren't kept around!

Rockie

Another thing to consider: did any other employee has access the object that was broken. If several people could have had the opportunity to break the object, then you really have no proof that this person actually did it (just gut feeling).

We ran into this issue with money missing from an office. Everyone felt in their gut they knew who did it by some previous behavior and access to money, etc.and the fact that money around this same individual had disappeared on a previous occasion and she miraculously "found it". The fact that there was sloppy recordkeeping and funds were not properly secured, was a fact that we could not ignore (and neither would the courts).

You may be stuck with this one.

jennifer jo

gab, one thing that we have found very helpful with regard to damage of company property, is to let the ees know that if they don't report the damage, our insurance company will not will not cover the costs of repair. Although some of the stories that we hear about how the damage was caused are outlandish (creative?), ees are reporting damage more often!

Shadowfax

All the posts have given good food for thought and/or consideration. But, if the ee is an at will ee, and you are satisfied in your own mind that he is the one and needs to go, just exercize your at will rights and terminate but without giving a reason. I know, lots of colleagues will say how unfair that is and ees deserve to know why etc. While that all may be true, If, in your opinoio it is in the best interests of the co to do this now, do it, tell ee it has come time to part company, and cut him loose. In Mi there is said to be (I'm not sure) an old case where an at will ee was terminated for fraud, and later sued kand proved he had not defrauded the co, and the court said the co, by giving an invalid reason for the term was liable, even though the ee was at will. If true, avoid reason, just thank yuou and goodbye. In the unemployment claim, if you can't prove cause, forget it and pay uc. Our job is to protect the co. If you are sure that is what you are doing, just do it. I expect some grief, so heap it on. But I just went through this. I know in my own mind the ee was stealing but I cannot prove it. Other ees know it too. They wait to see what youwill do. You can do as much damage bynot taking action as by taking it. Decide what course is right for your co at this time and go forward.

mwild31

Amen Shadowfax - I was just about to say something similar until I read your post. x:-)

Hatchetman

I wouldn't terminate.

However, if your company and the employee is in at will situation, and management wants to terminate on the "suspicion", then it may do that.

Just make sure the company is able to show that discharge wasn't based upon a protected CRA status, or other similar law that protects against certain causes of termination (e.g., whistleblowing).

Remember, under at wil, you don't have to give a reason for termination.

As I say, it's not something I would do but then now's the chance to find out if "at will" is cracked up to what everyone who supports it says it is.