Administering handbook policies

PAhr · September 2002

Our company handbook states "upon completion of an investigation confirming the following specific violations, dismissal will result:" Smoking or use of tobacco(i.e. snuff, chewing tobacco)in restricted areas. If we terminate one employee (female) for smoking in a restricted area but only give the other two (males) an oral warning for chewing in a restricted area will this be percieved as discrimination?

Margaret Morford · September 2002

Given the current facts, I'd say definitely yes. Is there some sort of believable explanation for why you treat the males differently?

Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]

PAhr · September 2002

The HR manager says that smoking and chewing are two completely different things and that chewing snuff is just something that men do. My problem is that women generally don't chew snuff, so any woman who breaks the rule will be terminated for getting her "nicotine fix" while the men are free to get their's with a slap on the wrist. I do agree that smoking in a restricted area can cause safety concerns where as the chewing won't but our handbook has a pretty general rule about tobacco usage and clearly states that anyone caught doing this will be terminated. Could we fire the woman for violating our fire/saftey policy and still keep the other two?

moneyman · September 2002

Sounds like a dangerous practice to me. Does your policy actually mention smoking and chewing as a definition of tobacco? If so, then I don't see how you could treat them differently. If it only mentions tobacco without a definition, then I would still be wary. I don't know about most people, but I would certainly include chewing as a form of tobacco product.

Now, for a little similar (but different) viewpoint (and maybe silly). Let's say that you have a little boy and girl. Daddy says it's okay for the boy to urinate out in the backyard, but the girl must go inside to use the bathroom. Mommy says that the rule is no urinating outside, but to the guys, it is just a thing that boys do. I don't think that the excuse that it is just a thing that guys do cuts it, in this situation, and especially in the world of current employment practices, I would say it is not a good idea.

March22Collector · September 2002

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-10-02 AT 09:10AM (CST)[/font][p]No, you cannot fire the female employee but not the males. They all three violated the same policy. It doesn't matter that one was smoking and the other two were chewing, the policy is the same for both tobacco products. Firing the female employee and keeping the males would look like discrimination, in my opinion. Has anyone else been terminated for violating that particular policy? Are your employees aware of that particular policy? If so, I'd say you should terminate all three.

Moneyman...Do you live behind my house? That scenario sounds way to familiar! x:D

moneyman · September 2002

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-10-02 AT 10:34AM (CST)[/font][p]No, I'm not spying on you, but I am speaking from experience.

Mike · September 2002

> Our company handbook states "upon completion of an investigation
>confirming the following specific violations, dismissal will result:"
>Smoking or use of tobacco(i.e. snuff, chewing tobacco)in restricted
>areas. If we terminate one employee (female) for smoking in a
>restricted area but only give the other two (males) an oral warning
>for chewing in a restricted area will this be percieved as
>discrimination?

You policy is very clear and very strong -- use of tobacco (i.e. snuff, chewing tobacco) in restricted areas WILL result in dismissal. In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to differentiate between smoking and chewing snuff since both are covered in the policy, which does not leave you much "wiggle" room when you use the word "WILL" and not a softer word "MAY."

Bottom line -- yes, it would appear that making the decision you propose may be perceived as discrimination because of how your policy reads. Maybe you would want to treat all three the some way with something less than termination, then modify your work rules so that it would differentiate between the two behaviors. Personally, I would not recommend that because chewing snuff could contribute to unsanitary conditions that could negatively affect the integrity of the product that you make.

HS · September 2002

> will this be percieved as discrimination?

MOST DEFINITELY!!

Your policy seems to clearly state all use of tobacco in restricted areas WILL result in termination. Sounds to me like you need more consistency in enforcing or being flexible with your policies. What if the woman was chewing tobacco (it's not necessarily a man thing)? Your policy says that chewing and smoking is prohibited in restricted areas...if it is enforced for one, it's enforced for all. Don't be surprised when your ex-employee files a discrimination suit against you if you don't take action against all offenders, regardless of their sex.

NaeNae55 · September 2002

If I was sitting on a jury and all I heard was the facts you stated in your post, I would vote that your company sexually discriminated against your female employee. Nuff said.

Margaret Morford · September 2002

NaeNae 55,

Don't you mean "Snuff said?"

Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]

Cinderella · September 2002

I agree with the others, all should be treated the same per the handbook. Just an aside...chewing tobacco can be dangerous to other employees: if someone spits out their chew/saliva mixture on, say, lenolium, someone could slip and fall and bust their head open. Even if they say they wouldn't spit it there, how can they justify that when they are already breaking a rule by chewing it there? Just some thoughts.
The whole "boys will be boys" thing is ridiculous. Get some self control and chew/smoke/whatever on your break in the designated area for crying out loud I say!
Cinderella

Rockie · September 2002

I agree with the posts in favor - "Male employees are not allowed to wear earrings."

Amazingly enough, this was never challenged by a male.

Don D · September 2002

Please give me a specific logical explanation as to why one would have a rule against the use of snuff or chewing tobacco. Not personal preferences or dislikes please. The thought that chewing tobacco might result in someone spitting on the floor and causing somebody else to slip and fall is pretty shallow. If you fear that, then you must also prohibit soft drinks and coffee, not to mention bananas. Smoking in the workplace is a no brainer. Although I view a visitor with a 'chaw' or somebody spitting in my garbage can as disgusting and worthy of an immediate outburst (by me) I don't see that either involves my personal health as would smoking. But, regardless of whether your policy has backup wisdom, it must be enforced consistently regardless of sex.

moneyman · September 2002

The original post mentioned the prohibition in "restricted areas" which could cause safety problems. I am imagining a manufacturing site, plant/machine operations or computer equipment where things like food and drinks would also be restricted. Just my thoughts x:-)

PAhr · September 2002

The company doesn't allow soda (bottled water only and must be in a closed plastic container), absolutely no food or candy as well as tobacco products. This is to ensure that there is no contamination of the product. The reason why the company banned chewing was because complaints were made about spit on the floor (safety issue as shallow as it may sound) and also because they were spitting in garbage cans. This sounds like it would be reasonable unless you are the one emptying the can. People complained that sometimes they would need to stick their hands in the can to get all the garbage out (normal production garbage is dry raw materials) and they would end up getting their hands and arms smeared up with chew spit. I would not want to touch someone elses spit let alone chew spit. This is considered unsanitary and possibly a health risk as well and that is why chewing is restricted.

Holly · October 2002

If there is "chew spit" in the trash that one of your employees empties, you may be exposing them to "Blood Borne Pathogens".

Hoo, Boy! Now it's an OSHA issue.

I just love to read these forums.

Administering handbook policies

Comments