loyalty or what

lakeperson

Have an individual as an employee of our homeowner association and also is a homeowner in the community.

On ee days off, and as a homeowner, she composed a letter and flyer urging other homeowners not to vote for a particular candidate for our Board of Director's election. The candidate (who is the current president) has seen the flyer and is very upset to the point of seeking termination of this employee, siting all employees should be in a neutral position. Association policy states that a homeowner may express any opinion regarding the Association, (even though that homeowner is an ee and opinions are not expressed, etc "on the clock".) He also states that if an ee is present on the property on days off, any board member may approach ee and order specific instructions to solve a problem. This particular ee has stated to the president that they are on their day off to enjoy the lake and to contact on duty personnel for resolution to his problem. This president is also seeking termination of this ee, siting insubordination.
Management is in agreement with ee, but president is adamant and will push issue for termination.

Isn't this opening a door to retaliation and a possible big-time law suit. Management has also been threatened that if they do not terminate ee, their position would be in jeopardy. This situation will more than likely come to a head in the next few days.

Please, any suggestions!

System

I don't understand the structure of the homeowners association you have there. It must be quite large to be able to have paid officers. Anyway, I suppose you have a charter or constitution of some kind, or if they are employees, you must have a handbook. Look at work rules such as - "Employee shall not conduct nor gather on premises to conduct any personal business without authorization" or - "Employees shall not engage in unapproved soliciting, partisan political activity, while on duty or on the premises" - Employees shall not release . . . or information relating to elected officials, employees, or agents without explicit written permission . ."

That would give you a basis for termination. It shouldn't matter what the employee's opinion is. Management should look at the action objectively and sort it out. Eventually this employee will cite his/her first amendment rights.

Oh, by the way. Welcome to the Forum. I hope someone can be more helpful that this. Others who are more hip than I am will chime in and help you.

lakeperson

Officers of the Association are not paid, but volunteer. We do have a policy that states "The personal life of an employee is not an appropriate concern for the attention of the Board of Directors except as it may directly prevent the employee from poperly performing his/her duties or responsibilities. Thanks for the input.

SMace

I'm gonna break down what you said and give you my $.01.


The candidate (who is
>the current president) has seen the flyer and is
>very upset to the point of seeking termination
>of this employee,

They are mad about the letter and that's why they want them fired.


siting all employees should be
>in a neutral position. Association policy states
>that a homeowner may express any opinion
>regarding the Association, (even though that
>homeowner is an ee and opinions are not
>expressed, etc "on the clock".)

The policy is in direct conflict with what the president sites regarding neutrality.

He also states
>that if an ee is present on the property on days
>off, any board member may approach ee and order
>specific instructions to solve a problem. This
>particular ee has stated to the president that
>they are on their day off to enjoy the lake and
>to contact on duty personnel for resolution to
>his problem.

I bet this happened a while ago and nothing was done. Now the president wants to fire this person and they think,"Oh yeah, I remember when they did that." It sounds from your post that the president just made this rule up out of the blue.

I honestly don't know if terminating the employee is illegal. But, there has to be some law in CA that prohibits it. Legal or not, it does not pass the sleep at night test for me. It would be wrong and cause many more problems than it would solve. I say fire the president.

lorrie

Is this ee in any protected class? (over 40, female, etc.) Even if not, I would be wary of termination unless you can find specific written policies that this homeowner/ee violated. I would explain to the president that you could find no specific violations, per policy; and while this might be a very frustrating situation to him, termination will only bring additional problems without solving any. The homeowner can still campaign against him, and he will look worse for firing someone who spoke against him. (Is there a written guideline for WHO this employee reports to?)

His thought about "if an ee is present on the property on days off, any board member may approach ee and order specific instructions to solve a problem" is downright ridiculous. (Are ee's on call 24-7? Will this give board members permission to phone any ee in the middle of the night and demand help by way of the SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS they came up with in order to solve a 'percieved' problem?) This is just a bad idea on so many levels.

Any idea where the other board members stand on this issue? If it were me - I would do my best to reason with the president, and explain the issues (unemployment, possible lawsuit - people can sue for anything - Is the homeowners association prepared to defend a lawsuit? How will the others feel about this president then?)

lakeperson

Other Board Members have just been notified and we have yet to receive responses. EE is in protected class (46 female)There are specific guidelines as to whom she reports. She is a supervisor and reports to management. Thank you for reaffirming our position and your input.

Whatever

Let's take this in a different direction. If this ee is fired, there will be a lawsuit because the ee's rights as a homeowner have been violated (including the right to use the facilities the same as other homeowners and have an opinion during their non-working hours)(strange thought, does this mean the ee is also suing themself). What you don't mention is what the other members of the Board of Directors are or are not doing.

In any case, this a no win situation if the ee is terminated. The rules should be changed so that no homeowner can be a ee (with a clause grandfathering in all current ee/homeowners).

lakeperson

In the real world it would be nice to have a policy regarding ee/homeowner however, our area is very remote and employment pool is VERY limited from which to draw, therefore it is a benefit to have ee/homeowner.

marc

The president is an elected official who serves at the pleasure of the members.

Isn't this similar to the mayor of a municipality? There are specific prohibitions against EEs spending clock time on campaign issues, which your EE avoids, but there cannot be a prohibition against active campaigning, expressing opinions, even running against the incumbent. That is patently ridiculous.

Associations are funny little animials. It sounds like the president has his nose out of joint with respect to the EE actively campaigning against him. He needs to abandon the neutrality idea.

As to the 24/7 on-call, that could be a big issue with a non-exempt EE. Does the association's handbook include discussion about on-call pay versus overtime pay? Preventing an person from certain activities while on call (such as drinking), can lead to pay issues, but I confess I don't remember how they are handled right now.

Sounds like the directors need to meet, establish some policy parameters around these issues, and move on.

Crout

Are these employees non-exempt? When they're being ordered about by the Nazis....I mean Board members on their days off are they being compensated?

lakeperson

ee is non-exempt and in this one situation we did compensate her for her time spent in dealing with said director, but would be ridiculous to have to pay ee for 24/7 whenever a board member speaks to them. Attorneys have contacted.

Crout

Suppose a Board member speaks to an employee on a day off and that little meeting takes 15 to 30 minutes. Are you saying you won't compensate the EE for that time?

lakeperson

No, it means we will, but where do you draw the line and when can an ee have an uninterrupted day off? Not fair to the ee.

Crout

You're right, it's not fair, but unfortunately as far as the FLSA is concerned it's also perfectly legal. Your state may have additional laws governing this, but under the FLSA you can tell your workers that they will be working 168 hours a week, every week. The thing is, you MUST pay them according to the law. So if your Board members are giving people tasks on their day off they must compensate them, which could obviously mean overtime. Morale issues aside, avoiding overtime is a very good reason why your Board members should not be using people on their days off.

lakeperson

Agreed. WE are more than happy to compensate an ee for time worked even if it means overtime. This is a great ee,and we will take good care of her, but its frustrating to her to be constantly interrupted by this power-mongering Board member. We see a harrassment issue on the horizon.

System

If you want to get control of your workplace, it is very important that it be clearly set forth that Board members (including the President) are policy makers. They should not have supervisory authority over any employee, except through the General Manager (the top paid official) who has responsibility for the work activities of the complex. To allow Directors to order employees around and direct work in any fashion will only cause you immense problems. Policy is one thing, management is another.

Also, one must consider the fact that the employee who wrote the flyer has a first amendment right of free speech on her own time, particularly. You may well have a lawsuit develop if the President prevails, but minimally you will have some very bad PR to potentially develop.

Crout

There is no such thing as a "first amendment right of free speech" for individuals who work for a private employer. That concept applies to people who work for a government entity. Certain speech is protected under the NLRA, but that is limited to specific criteria.

marc

Of course, you are referring to time "on the clock" with respect to that First Amendment comment. Mike specifically mentioned the EE had it during their own time.

Even then though, I have seen some policies that will discipline if exercising those free speech rights caused embarassment or somehow negatively impacted a company's reputation.

How free is the speech if it gets you fired?

But that's probably another thread.

SMace

The 1st amendment protects you from the government. It doesn't protect you from your employer (unless they are the government). "On the clock" or "off the clock" doesn't matter.

Crout

No, as you noted marc, unless it's protected activity under the NLRB, a private employer has no obligation whatsoever to protect or respect the first amendment rights of any employee...on the clock or off. According to our handbook, I can be fired for participating in any way for any political candidate for public office, or for any political party without prior authorization.

LivindonSouth

Well, since we're splitting hairs with precision here, that would be the NLRA, not the NLRB. Crout, I thought you had vanished.

Gillian3

Sorry, this is California. There are labor codes which say that an employer can't control or direct political activities or affiliations of employees, nor coerce any political direction based on threats to employment. An employer can control disruption at work, though.

Back to the original topic, neighborhood association are the norm in Ca.,and many have a history of abusive behavior toward residents and are becoming subject to increasing regulation because of that. Nothing I am aware of applies to the topic of a Board member becoming too involved in the daily activities of an employee - that becomes a dicey situation for the management company to deal with.

LivindonSouth

If the employee is black, there's a fair chance that one phone call from Jessie Jackson will reverse this whole thing, plus a nice donation to Rainbow Coalition will be reflected in the budget handed out at the year-end pool party. See, even in California, things are not that difficult to resolve. x:-)




Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.

Crout

Ah, didn't notice lakeperson was really Cal lakeperson. There you have it. I have NOT resurfaced. I have been here the whole time. I'm a man, NOT an envelope.