Well written and AMEN!!!!!!! If the ER values these "long-term" EEs then there should be benefits, vacation, personal time, LOA...to keep them from getting into attendance problems. Absent that, a policy is a policy for all.
All I am trying to say in my scenario is WHY treat ee's different. We are suppose to be non bias and having both ees in same situation you are treating one ee differently than you are treating another ee.
Does not go into race, age, sex that is irrelevant to this discussion and only adds more factors. What is being discussed is your companies attendance policy and how you as an individual company wishes to enforce that policy.
I feel that while the company is grateful for the 20 yrs of service, the ee is also taking advantage of the company by not expecting to be disciplined for something that a lower senority ee would be receiving. You are setting yourself up for double standards and policies for the under 10 yr ee and the over 10 yr ee.
There is a legitimate business reaosn why many emplyers do treat emplyees with long term good emplyment recor differnetly than shortermrers.
The employer sees a vluae in loyalty and the emplyee has value to the emplyer. Knowledged of the comapny, kthe time and effort the company has put into the emplyee over the years (e.g., traiing), the xpertiese of the emplyee in the comapny's service,s proucts, operations, etc.
The comapny isn't going to throw away that resoruce so quickly. So, it will address that kind of emplyee, who has a good record, differently than short-termer.
I am not saying that a long term emplyee who has a good attendance record and begins to devleop an absence problme does't need to be talked to at some point. But the employer may want to take longer to consider that the emplyee is an attendnace problme than it would in considering a short-termer to be an attendance problem. After all, the history of the emplyee is a very good indicator, absent any other information, of how the employee will act over the long term. Since the employer has no information about a short termer to consider, it would be morel likely then to consider frequent absences to be indicative of the long term employment and therefore would take steps to address sooner than the employee who has long term service with a good attendnace record up to that point.
So, in practicality, an automatic "tripwire" for ALL circumstances, doesn't make sense.
Hatchetman: Now that you've stated that opinion 3 times, tell us where you're magic line lies. A short timer...Would that be the guy with 16 months or four and a half years. As compared to whom? The 20 year guy or the eleven year guy. Let's say you have all four of those employees racking up the points at the same rate and teetering on dismissal at my company.Which one(s)get a pass? Only the 20 year guy because of his perceived loyalty? Or maybe also the eleven year guy because he's had good reviews? And the 4 and a half year guy has good attendance, good reviews and is on a fast track to leadership. Or do you suspend them all for two weeks while you run your analysis?
I don't know what type of arbitrations or EEOC hearings you've been in, but I can tell you for sure none I've been in would allow an employer to have such a wishy-washy, subjective policy as you are proposing to the members of the Forum. But, please, using the four employees I exampled above, all with the same attendance issues, which ones get what..........and why? And to further complicate things with reality, remember that attendance issues continue to occur, as they always do, throughout each day and week while you decide and you have several others wanting to know what your policy is going to be so they can plan their behavior appropriately.
I don't have a "bright line" for you. I don't think anyone has, althoug I've seen aribtation cases have have start to see a difference between 10 year emplyees and short termers. I've seen a couple over the years, that have looked at 5 years. But as Jake (in post No. 29) puts it, what is important is for HR to use its experience, judgement, knowledge, prooer anlaysis, goes inot all of this to determine what the most approrpiate action should be in any particular case, using relevant factors.
The fact that I don't have a bright line doesn't invalidate what I am and others are suggesting. Being arbitrary by setting attendance standards that aren't based on anything except an artificial number, is just as bad as being capricious. I'm not proposing either.
I am suggesting considered deliberations by those who need to make them with a view of the overall circumstances and determinations on relevantm, acceptable factors, such as work history and length of service.
Usually I try to stay out of these arguments but what the hell, it's Friday. I recognize the value of Don's position regarding potential litigation risk by treating people different. But frankly, there is a risk of litigation every time we walk in the door.
I think we as HR professionals have an obligation to use our knowledge and experience to make decisions. If it were a simple matter of flipping to page 1120 of the employee handbook or policy and reading what it says then there is no need for an HR professional as anyone who can read can make the call.
I believe that to make a proper and decent and defendable decision on disciplinary matters, one has to review ALL the facts associated with the situation including length of prior service and performance.
In the case of a 20 year good performer vs a 2 year poor performer, I have no problem whatsoever in giving a verbal to the 20 year and written to the 2 year.
If there is a problem, it's when people take this philosophy too far and fire the 2 year employee and no one even speaks with the 20 year person.
Sorry, but in the case of an attendance policy, there should be no exceptions. I have been to many an arbitration or unemployment hearing and one of the first questions asked is "Does your company have a policy. If yes, may I see it. Was the employee aware of this policy?" I have never lost one of these type of cases.
I must agree with Don and the others for maintaining consistancy. If you have a written progressive descipline policy for absenteeism, longevity nor performance should enter the picture. What if the 20 year employee is a borderline performer and the 2 year employee is a shining star? Progressive disciplinary policies are to counsel the employee of the problem, provide suggestions to correct the problem, but ensure they realize it is their problem to correct, and what the next step is if the problem persists. A counseling session does not jeapardize the long term employee's job, but it does reinforce the need to comply with company policy.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-18-04 AT 05:38PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I'll bow out after this one (maybe). Tell you what, California Dreamers, I will mail each of you a crisp dollar bill if you can send me an article by one labor attorney or seminar presenter or EEOC District Director that supports your argument. A California judge or college professor or a member of the Ninth District will not count as a credible source. My offer begins now.
U.S. Steel Corp.,41 LA 469 - Arbiter determines that an employees otherwise spotless 37 years of service is reason to reinstate employee after being absent due to incarceration.
I could cite a few hundred, thousand, etc other cases where arbiters have maintained that the length of work record is relevent to the decision but instead will simply provide the guide that most arbiters follow: 1. The employer should enjoy reasonable discretionary powers to prescribe the rules of conduct. 2. The rules should be publicized. 3. The employer should apply the rules seriously and without discrimination. 4. The employer should consider discipline as corrective not punitive. 5.e employer should evaluate each situation in light of the employee's disciplinary record. 6. The employer should tailor the punishment to fit the crime. 7. Even though two employees are involved in the same act of misconduct, the same penalty need not be meted out to each. Such things as prior disciplinary records and length of service may be considered. (47 LA 1104)
Although I see nothing in that post prohibiting an employer from enforcing a strict attendance policy, I'm hoping that the two gentlemen from California can produce something credible from a source associated with our particular discipline. I do not read that montage of vague comments to say that employers cannot or should not be consistent in policy application. "Even though two employees are involved in the same act of misconduct, the same penalty need not be meted out to each." I don't see that as a mandate that we abandon consistent discipline. And I doubt seriously that it applies to the issue of a strict attendance policy, rather it would apply to two employees who might each walk away from their job without supervisory permission. Please continue your search boys.
There is no writen law or any court case that specifically orders all employers to consider x, y, and z when discharging an emplyer. In at will, of course, an employer is essentially free to do anything. Essentally free. But not really.
Wrongful dischrge cases, cases involving vioaltions of public policy are often considered by courts in at will emplyment situations.
What you need to look at are series of arbitrations and court cases where the issues do revolve around the propriety of a discharge.
As Jake noted there are plenty of aribtration cases that do look a the individual involved, the work history on the job, as well as the act that caused the discharge.
There are no mandates in law that says the employer MUST consider x, y and z before discharging the employee just as there is no mandate that says the emplyer may not terminate the employee because the employee sneezed (without it being a symptom of a disability or serious helath condition). I coudld post a list if you want it (fo=rom some of my HR resource materials).
But if a court case were brought on wrongful termination it is not concnceivable that the emplyer would lose if it terminated an employee with an excellent 20-year employment history (including for attendance) for 4 incidents of tardiness in a 30 day period simply becuase it had a polcy that said it could.
You have made the same argument about 4 different times Hatchetman. I have seen many, many arbitrations twisted into nonsense by a wacko arbitrator. I'm not interested in the thought process of an arbitrator. And I have personally sat through a 10 hour per day, six day long NLRB trial in which I was the target, and lost on a decision by a pinheaded judge who slept through half the trial. And I trust you do realize that ALL NLRB judges were at one time NLRB attorneys, who ultimately are union plaintiff's attorneys. Following a list of guidelines that someone thinks arbitrators might use is sort of like making your decisions based on how you think the ninth district court of appeals might rule.
Monday, I am going to suspend for three days without pay a guy in shipping who has been with the company for 16 years. Friday he told his supervisor, "Y'all can kiss my ass", when he was given a disciplinary writeup. If that were to go to arbitration in a union setting, we would lose it. That speaks loudly to the sanity of that process. I am opting for consistency in the application of disciplinary principals and that's far from the earlier suggestion that to do so takes only a robot.
This is not an at-will issue nor does it have anything to do with wrongful termination. There is no such thing as wrongful termination unless you have a state law that allows that to be brought or it is a title VII charge.
Here's what I ask of you:
"I will mail each of you a crisp dollar bill if you can send me an article by one labor attorney or seminar presenter or EEOC District Director that supports your argument."
Don, I'm really not interested in your dollar so you can finally get off that dime.
What Jake and I are takking about are outside considerations of Title VII (and other civil rights laws discrimination). There's nothing inconsistent with length of service and employment record to be a consideration in an employer's decision on disciplinary actions or any other meplyment matter as long as it is not based on consideration of an employee's protected status or not a pretextual contention to hide an illegal discriminatory reason.
Your position appears to be that seniority -- length of service -- may NEVER be a consideration in empolyment decisions because Title VII and all civil rights laws REQUIRE the employer to treat ALL employees exactly the same.
But in fact the civil rights laws don't require that. For example, the Equal Pay Act clearly permits seniority to be a factor in an emplyer's pay system. Of course it has to be gender neutral but it still does result in some men doing the same job as some owmen being paid more than those women simply because they have been on the job longer -- just as some women doing the same job as some men are paid more than those men because they have been on the job longer. Take a look at Volume 29 of the US code, Seciton 206(d).
Damn Hatchet! I think you're just being ornery and thickheaded. x:-) I never said seniority, tenure and such can't and don't and should not be considerations in some disciplinary matters. I am talking ONLY about a no-fault attendance policy that is written and followed to the letter for the sake of consistency. That's the totality of what I'm advocating here.
This whole thread is about ATTENDANCE, and that only. And it is a fact that a no-fault attendance policy will be rendered useless and indefensible if it is not followed. As was mentioned by another poster, the first things the hearing officer will ask, and surely you have experienced this, are, "Do you have an attendance policy, may I have a copy of it, do you follow it, and was it followed in this case, and if not, what weight do you expect me to give it?"
The top items in my briefcase are always the policy upon which a termination was based, a copy of the employee's signature page indicating receipt of it, and the disciplinary documents leading up to termination that are based on that policy. Twenty year guy, ten year guy, 5 year guy, 5 month guy. None, perhaps poor performers, all of whom bombed out on the attendance policy, in the case in point.
It is not possible to use your theory on a practical basis unless all of the employees are of one identical set of demographic characteristics, otherwise you will certainly have a Title VII charge. No workplace meets that test. That's the reason consistency is defensible and subjective considerations are not.
Dollar or no dollar, you simply cannot back up your theory with credible support from any Human Resources or labor law seminar presenter or author, discounting of course, Gillian3, who is a consultant and expert witness who waffles with the smell of cash. And please, enough about what might be the outcome of arbitration. That is the most biased, unprofessional and unfair venue of all hearings of every sort. Cheers and a good weekend to you.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-19-04 AT 02:06PM (CST)[/font][br][br]If you want impose a one-size fits all policy for anything you may. There is no prohibition on that.
Just as there is no prohibition into taking lenth of service and service record into account when it's relevant in determining how to deal with performance or misconduct issues including attendance and tardiness.
It seems you don't want to acknowledge that history of an emplyee is relevant in helping an emplyer decide what to do. That's okay. As I said before, I think you are doing a disfavor to your employer by jeopardizing its investment in a 20-year excellent employee but may be just be going through some difficult times by being absent 4 times in a 30 day period, or 8 times in a 50-day period and considering no better than a two-month employee with the same tardiness pattern. I just hope that you don't have to worry about aribtrator's decisions.
Clearly, we both expressed positions that may be appropriate. It depends on what an employer wants to do.
"....may be going through some difficult times..." Now we're going to disect why people are tardy and absent and leave early! Consider the debate ended. Thank you for your opinion. "WE REPORT, YOU DECIDE."
I had to chuckle at the back and forth banter here. But nonetheless felt I wanted to share with you that where I work there seems to be no such thing as "excessive absenteeism" - even when they exceed their 12-15 alotted sick days! Of course this is not a manufacturing plant (no kidding). Keep the faith guys!
Wow when I posted this question I had no idea it was going to result in all of this! Just to clarify I am looking for a blanket policy that applys to everyone, not taking seniority in to factor. Thanks for all of the input, hopefully we will be able to get something in place to help deter absenteeism...we need it!
I am a California ER and although we may have some questionable laws and regulations. This issue regarding attendance is not one of them it is an individual companies decision.
I am one who believes that ALL ees should follow the same policies and be disciplined the same for failure to do so. PERIOD.
Well, here's ours. I hope the 'banter', as it was called, might be educational for some. It represents two divergent perspectives from which you might chose.
Hourly Attendance Policy
Point System Leave early ( work less than 4 hours - early ) = 1 point Leave early ( work more than 4 hours – early) = ½ point Clock in late = ½ point Absent ( for any reason except * below) = 1 point
Funeral leave, jury duty, vacation, plant closed work related injury and/or military leave.
No call in will result in an unexcused absence. Each employee is expected to call in prior to the beginning of their shift if they are going to be late or absent. No call in for two days is an automatic “quit.”
Vacations may be taken in ½ day increments. The amount of notice required for taking a ½ day vacation is at the Supervisors’ discretion.
Any employee with two (2) months’ of continuous poor attendance will be expected to participate in our Performance Commitment program. “Continuous poor attendance” is defined as two consecutive months with two or more separate incidences per month.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-21-04 AT 10:07AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Re. "waffling with the smell of cash". No, Don, I don't. You don't last as long as I have as an expert witness if you aren't a straight shooter. The only thing that is more than the number of attorneys who I have declined to work for is the number of attorneys who have decided they don't want my testimony.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-21-04 AT 12:28PM (CST)[/font][br][br]An employee's accumulation of any four "incidents" within any rolling 12-month period begins the progressive discipline process. A seventh offense results in termination.
An "incident" is considered to be any of the following:
Absence Improper call out Tardy Employee requested early-out
Trying to read this thread has been a chore, but finally got to the bottom!
CarrieMP - this policy applies to a 7/24 casino, a (mostly) five day mining and concrete ops, a 7/20 convenience store, a seven day farm, and an cowboy catering/entertainment ops. Management in some areas thinks it's too liberal, management in others thinks it's too tough. Ah well, it is what it is:
Two or more absences, excused or unexcused, in any rolling 30-day time frame is unacceptable.
Three or more late starts/early quits in any rolling 30-day time frame is unacceptable.
1. Written 2. Second written 3. Third written, three to five day suspension 4. Out the door
Any three unexcused or no call/no shows in 30 days is deemed as a voluntary resignation.
For all employees(5 months, 5 years, whatever time of service) management has the discretion to coach and counsel, documented in employee department file (I'm crossing threads!) and warn of the impending "official" action. If behavior continues, official action starts...period.
Our hourly employees receive 40 hours of sick time per year, and 1 - 3 years 40 hours of vacation, 4 and 5 80 hours, 6, 7, 8 120 hours, 8 and above 160 hours. I have to agree with whoever said it above (sorry couldn't keep track!) that if a long time employee is being rewarded with 200 hours off for years of service, and is having a problem with attendance, it is the same as my one year employee with 80 hours of paid leave with an attendance problem.
Comments
Welcome back! Its been awhile.
Lisa
Does not go into race, age, sex that is irrelevant to this discussion and only adds more
factors. What is being discussed is your companies attendance policy and how you as an individual company wishes to enforce that policy.
I feel that while the company is grateful for the 20 yrs of service, the ee is also taking advantage of the company by not expecting to be disciplined for something that a lower senority ee would be receiving. You are setting yourself up for double standards and policies for the under 10 yr ee and the over 10 yr ee.
JMO,
Lisa x:D
The employer sees a vluae in loyalty and the emplyee has value to the emplyer. Knowledged of the comapny, kthe time and effort the company has put into the emplyee over the years (e.g., traiing), the xpertiese of the emplyee in the comapny's service,s proucts, operations, etc.
The comapny isn't going to throw away that resoruce so quickly. So, it will address that kind of emplyee, who has a good record, differently than short-termer.
I am not saying that a long term emplyee who has a good attendance record and begins to devleop an absence problme does't need to be talked to at some point. But the employer may want to take longer to consider that the emplyee is an attendnace problme than it would in considering a short-termer to be an attendance problem. After all, the history of the emplyee is a very good indicator, absent any other information, of how the employee will act over the long term. Since the employer has no information about a short termer to consider, it would be morel likely then to consider frequent absences to be indicative of the long term employment and therefore would take steps to address sooner than the employee who has long term service with a good attendnace record up to that point.
So, in practicality, an automatic "tripwire" for ALL circumstances, doesn't make sense.
I don't know what type of arbitrations or EEOC hearings you've been in, but I can tell you for sure none I've been in would allow an employer to have such a wishy-washy, subjective policy as you are proposing to the members of the Forum. But, please, using the four employees I exampled above, all with the same attendance issues, which ones get what..........and why? And to further complicate things with reality, remember that attendance issues continue to occur, as they always do, throughout each day and week while you decide and you have several others wanting to know what your policy is going to be so they can plan their behavior appropriately.
The fact that I don't have a bright line doesn't invalidate what I am and others are suggesting. Being arbitrary by setting attendance standards that aren't based on anything except an artificial number, is just as bad as being capricious. I'm not proposing either.
I am suggesting considered deliberations by those who need to make them with a view of the overall circumstances and determinations on relevantm, acceptable factors, such as work history and length of service.
I think we as HR professionals have an obligation to use our knowledge and experience to make decisions. If it were a simple matter of flipping to page 1120 of the employee handbook or policy and reading what it says then there is no need for an HR professional as anyone who can read can make the call.
I believe that to make a proper and decent and defendable decision on disciplinary matters, one has to review ALL the facts associated with the situation including length of prior service and performance.
In the case of a 20 year good performer vs a 2 year poor performer, I have no problem whatsoever in giving a verbal to the 20 year and written to the 2 year.
If there is a problem, it's when people take this philosophy too far and fire the 2 year employee and no one even speaks with the 20 year person.
If you have a written progressive descipline policy for absenteeism, longevity nor performance should enter the picture.
What if the 20 year employee is a borderline performer and the 2 year employee is a shining star?
Progressive disciplinary policies are to counsel the employee of the problem, provide suggestions to correct the problem, but ensure they realize it is their problem to correct, and what the next step is if the problem persists.
A counseling session does not jeapardize the long term employee's job, but it does reinforce the need to comply with company policy.
Have a good weekend!
(edit) Is US currency accepted in California?
I could cite a few hundred, thousand, etc other cases where arbiters have maintained that the length of work record is relevent to the decision but instead will simply provide the guide that most arbiters follow:
1. The employer should enjoy reasonable discretionary powers to prescribe the rules of conduct.
2. The rules should be publicized.
3. The employer should apply the rules seriously and without discrimination.
4. The employer should consider discipline as corrective not punitive.
5.e employer should evaluate each situation in light of the employee's disciplinary record.
6. The employer should tailor the punishment to fit the crime.
7. Even though two employees are involved in the same act of misconduct, the same penalty need not be meted out to each. Such things as prior disciplinary records and length of service may be considered. (47 LA 1104)
Please send the dollar
If Don doesn't send you the dollar I will.
Wrongful dischrge cases, cases involving vioaltions of public policy are often considered by courts in at will emplyment situations.
What you need to look at are series of arbitrations and court cases where the issues do revolve around the propriety of a discharge.
As Jake noted there are plenty of aribtration cases that do look a the individual involved, the work history on the job, as well as the act that caused the discharge.
There are no mandates in law that says the employer MUST consider x, y and z before discharging the employee just as there is no mandate that says the emplyer may not terminate the employee because the employee sneezed (without it being a symptom of a disability or serious helath condition). I coudld post a list if you want it (fo=rom some of my HR resource materials).
But if a court case were brought on wrongful termination it is not concnceivable that the emplyer would lose if it terminated an employee with an excellent 20-year employment history (including for attendance) for 4 incidents of tardiness in a 30 day period simply becuase it had a polcy that said it could.
Monday, I am going to suspend for three days without pay a guy in shipping who has been with the company for 16 years. Friday he told his supervisor, "Y'all can kiss my ass", when he was given a disciplinary writeup. If that were to go to arbitration in a union setting, we would lose it. That speaks loudly to the sanity of that process. I am opting for consistency in the application of disciplinary principals and that's far from the earlier suggestion that to do so takes only a robot.
This is not an at-will issue nor does it have anything to do with wrongful termination. There is no such thing as wrongful termination unless you have a state law that allows that to be brought or it is a title VII charge.
Here's what I ask of you:
"I will mail each of you a crisp dollar bill if you can send me an article by one labor attorney or seminar presenter or EEOC District Director that supports your argument."
What Jake and I are takking about are outside considerations of Title VII (and other civil rights laws discrimination). There's nothing inconsistent with length of service and employment record to be a consideration in an employer's decision on disciplinary actions or any other meplyment matter as long as it is not based on consideration of an employee's protected status or not a pretextual contention to hide an illegal discriminatory reason.
Your position appears to be that seniority -- length of service -- may NEVER be a consideration in empolyment decisions because Title VII and all civil rights laws REQUIRE the employer to treat ALL employees exactly the same.
But in fact the civil rights laws don't require that. For example, the Equal Pay Act clearly permits seniority to be a factor in an emplyer's pay system. Of course it has to be gender neutral but it still does result in some men doing the same job as some owmen being paid more than those women simply because they have been on the job longer -- just as some women doing the same job as some men are paid more than those men because they have been on the job longer. Take a look at Volume 29 of the US code, Seciton 206(d).
This whole thread is about ATTENDANCE, and that only. And it is a fact that a no-fault attendance policy will be rendered useless and indefensible if it is not followed. As was mentioned by another poster, the first things the hearing officer will ask, and surely you have experienced this, are, "Do you have an attendance policy, may I have a copy of it, do you follow it, and was it followed in this case, and if not, what weight do you expect me to give it?"
The top items in my briefcase are always the policy upon which a termination was based, a copy of the employee's signature page indicating receipt of it, and the disciplinary documents leading up to termination that are based on that policy. Twenty year guy, ten year guy, 5 year guy, 5 month guy. None, perhaps poor performers, all of whom bombed out on the attendance policy, in the case in point.
It is not possible to use your theory on a practical basis unless all of the employees are of one identical set of demographic characteristics, otherwise you will certainly have a Title VII charge. No workplace meets that test. That's the reason consistency is defensible and subjective considerations are not.
Dollar or no dollar, you simply cannot back up your theory with credible support from any Human Resources or labor law seminar presenter or author, discounting of course, Gillian3, who is a consultant and expert witness who waffles with the smell of cash. And please, enough about what might be the outcome of arbitration. That is the most biased, unprofessional and unfair venue of all hearings of every sort. Cheers and a good weekend to you.
Just as there is no prohibition into taking lenth of service and service record into account when it's relevant in determining how to deal with performance or misconduct issues including attendance and tardiness.
It seems you don't want to acknowledge that history of an emplyee is relevant in helping an emplyer decide what to do. That's okay. As I said before, I think you are doing a disfavor to your employer by jeopardizing its investment in a 20-year excellent employee but may be just be going through some difficult times by being absent 4 times in a 30 day period, or 8 times in a 50-day period and considering no better than a two-month employee with the same tardiness pattern. I just hope that you don't have to worry about aribtrator's decisions.
Clearly, we both expressed positions that may be appropriate. It depends on what an employer wants to do.
We should end the debate.
I am a California ER and although we may have some questionable laws and regulations. This issue regarding attendance is not one of them it is an individual companies decision.
I am one who believes that ALL ees should follow the same policies and be disciplined the same for failure to do so. PERIOD.
JMO,
Lisa
Hourly Attendance Policy
Point System
Leave early ( work less than 4 hours - early ) = 1 point
Leave early ( work more than 4 hours – early) = ½ point
Clock in late = ½ point
Absent ( for any reason except * below) = 1 point
Funeral leave, jury duty, vacation, plant closed work related injury and/or military leave.
No call in will result in an unexcused absence. Each employee is expected to call in prior to the beginning of their shift if they are going to be late or absent. No call in for two days is an automatic “quit.”
Vacations may be taken in ½ day increments. The amount of notice required for taking a ½ day vacation is at the Supervisors’ discretion.
Any employee with two (2) months’ of continuous poor attendance will be expected to participate in our Performance Commitment program.
“Continuous poor attendance” is defined as two consecutive months with two or more separate incidences per month.
An "incident" is considered to be any of the following:
Absence
Improper call out
Tardy
Employee requested early-out
CarrieMP - this policy applies to a 7/24 casino, a (mostly) five day mining and concrete ops, a 7/20 convenience store, a seven day farm, and an cowboy catering/entertainment ops. Management in some areas thinks it's too liberal, management in others thinks it's too tough. Ah well, it is what it is:
Two or more absences, excused or unexcused, in any rolling 30-day time frame is unacceptable.
Three or more late starts/early quits in any rolling 30-day time frame is unacceptable.
1. Written
2. Second written
3. Third written, three to five day suspension
4. Out the door
Any three unexcused or no call/no shows in 30 days is deemed as a voluntary resignation.
For all employees(5 months, 5 years, whatever time of service) management has the discretion to coach and counsel, documented in employee department file (I'm crossing threads!) and warn of the impending "official" action. If behavior continues, official action starts...period.
Our hourly employees receive 40 hours of sick time per year, and 1 - 3 years 40 hours of vacation, 4 and 5 80 hours, 6, 7, 8 120 hours, 8 and above 160 hours. I have to agree with whoever said it above (sorry couldn't keep track!) that if a long time employee is being rewarded with 200 hours off for years of service, and is having a problem with attendance, it is the same as my one year employee with 80 hours of paid leave with an attendance problem.
Whew - didn't realize I had so much to say!
>and an abacus to operate from that one. x:-)
You're gonna be in trouble if it's a cloudy day!!