The Discharge of Stephen P. Downes
Overview
Pearson (2017) asserts that discharging an employee is a disciplinary action that most of the companies are not eager to enforce since it results in taking away the ability of the individual to earn a living and takes away the income of the employee. Discharging of the employee can be the ultimate solution for maintaining profitability and efficiency of the processes in the company. However, it is vital for the company to follow the legal proceedings in discharging the employee to avoid any legal complications. Similarly, it is imperative for the company to dismiss the employee based on actions by the employees that go against the agreed rules of the company and not on actions based on assumptions and without evidence. In most of the cases as evidenced in the case study one, the decision to terminate or keep the employee is based on the evaluation of the work performance of the person. Such job performance evaluated include, misuse of the business property, failure to adhere to the rules of the company, incompetence in completing the projects and excessive absenteeism (Klingner, Nalbandian & Llorens, 2015).
It is necessary to warn the employee before discharging them by writing warnings or giving verbal warnings. As such, this will give the worker an opportunity to improve their performance to avoid discharge. Otherwise, continuity in going against the expectations of the company gives the company the right to terminate the employee while adhering to the correct legal proceedings. For legal reference, it is necessary to record the dates and time of infringement of the agreement between the company and the employee and a documentation of all the warnings given in response to infractions. It is important for the employee to sign all the disciplinary documents and have a witness to sign the documents (Pearson, 2017). However, upon the improvement of the worker’s performance after warnings, the employee has a right to be allowed to continue working in the company.
Case 1 revolves around the discharge of Stephen P. Downes a worker at Rotagravure Department, New Jersey Plant. The worker is reported to have worked in this company but since on July 13, 2008, the plant was closed for a week, he was assigned to work in the Value Floor at the pack area. He reported in the wrong workstation and worked until 2 p.m. where signed off the workstation. During all this time, the company was not aware of the presence of Stephen P. Downes in Rotagravure Department since it was closed and he was expected to report to the Value Floor Pack Area. During the work day, he did not report to any of the supervisors but still conducted his work as normal. In fact, he swept both his normally assigned area took the initiative of sweeping the work place assigned to his work mate who had “not reported working.” He was discharged on July 18, 2008, for violation of the rules of the Company, overall work record and operating in the work area without supervision from the authority.
Problems
The main problem as per this case is that Mr. Downes was aware that he was allocated the assignment to work in the Value Floor Pack area where he worked for two days but on the third day he did not report to this work station. As per the company, this evidences the ignorance of the worker and going against the rules of the Company where it is stated that the worker should not work without supervision from the authority. On July 13, Mr. Downes reported to have been in the Rotagravure Department, but none of his workmates nor any supervisor consented to have seen him which confirms absenteeism as from the company’s perspective. Being absent in the expected work area which is Value Floor Pack Area for eight hours and a list of other offenses made put the company in a position of considering discharging this worker. Other such offenses include failure of Mr. Downes to see the company’s physician, three-day suspension in 2008 for excess absenteeism and failure to document leaving the work for an emergency reason. On the contrary, the union suggests that Mr. Downes was discharged as a result of the incompetence of the company. As per the union’s argument, the worker was a diligent person who performed his duties and even went ahead to help his colleagues with their duties when he realized they were absent. As such, this shows a lack of good communication from the company since it is clear that the worker would have adhered to the instructions if only the company would have tried to reach the employee. As per the union, some of the reasons for terminating the employee are invalid since the 2008 3-day suspension was erased as per an agreement between the company and the union. Therefore, the suspension is not a succinct reason for discharging the worker. The employee’s name was cleared from the record hence the company was discharging the employee for the wrong reason. Similarly, the union argued that the employee had his time wasted as per the wrong instructions given by the company hence there was a need for reinstating Mr. Downes.
Alternative Solutions
Before discharging an employee, it is important to consider the repercussions of the termination to the operations of the company (Pearson, 2017). Discharging Mr. Downes may lead to holding a law suit against the company since his termination is based upon his 2008 suspension which is invalid based on the Company-Union agreement. Whatsoever, there will be a need to recruit another employee to fill the position of the worker since it will be left vacant. Not only will the process of recruiting another employee be time-consuming but also there will be a need for training the recruit to effectively fit into the distinct operations of the company. There are several alternatives to consider rather than deciding on Mr. Downes termination as the ultimate solution. One of the best solutions to avoid the termination of the employee and at the same time improve the performance of the worker is through reducing on the bonuses (Klingner, Nalbandian & Llorens, 2015). Similarly, halting the salary rise and promotions can ensure that the worker realizes the mistakes made hence a chance to improve their performance to benefit on such privileges once more. To ensure responsibility and solidarity among the workers, it is important for the officials to discuss the matter with the worker and introduce the reduction of such privileges in a happy note that ensures good rapport between the workers.
Klingner, Nalbandian and Llorens (2015) state that giving the employee a warning in written form can serve as a way of ensuring an improvement in performance. As such, the involved committee should explain to the employee on the reasons that make the performance not pleasing to the company. The employee might be thinking that his or her performance is per the expectations of the company hence may be the reason behind the poor performance. Therefore, it is necessary for the company to bridge the communication gap. If the employee’s performance does not increase after the warnings, the company can now go ahead and terminate the employee. By setting goals for the employee, the performance can be positively altered. As such, the employee will strive to meet the defined goals and in the process meeting the requirements of the company. Similarly, it is important to allocate the employee roles that fit their skills and qualification. As such, Mr. Downes may at times express some of the problems such as absenteeism based on the roles allocated.
It is important to discuss with the employee on the reasons they show ineptness in conducting their roles and how this can be changed with the help of the company. As such, work factors that might be the main reason behind the poor performance of the worker can be eliminated through this strategy. The employee performance may be dictated by lack of an understanding of the company’s expectations. The poor performance of the employee can be linked to lack of the knowledge in the dedication, time keeping and work necessary to achieve the goals of the company. Pearson (2017) argues that rather than discharging the employee, it is vital to inform them on the expectations of the company in the type of services delivered by the worker. After that, the worker should be given some time to rectify their performance but can be terminated if they do not improve.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The 2008 three day suspension served as a form of warning to Mr. Downes. If he did not improve his performance after the suspension, it is not convincing enough for the company to give him yet another warning. Nevertheless, a written warning may be enough for the worker to remember his obligations to the company and improve the performance. Setting short term goals for the employee such as reporting earlier and avoiding absenteeism for a given period can be an ideal alternative. The worker will work hard to meet these goals and in the long run achieve the expectations of the company (Klingner, Nalbandian & Llorens, 2015). However, some of the short-term goals may need supervision from the management which might put the managers in a compromising situation. Discussing with the employee on the possibility of being allocated a new role that fits his qualification may reduce some cases of incompetence. However, this might not be ideal for this situation because it will necessitate filling of Mr. Downes position by another employee which may be costly. Discussing with the employee on the expectations of the company in regards to the employees’ services is economical and can easily impact the necessary changes.
Recommendation
Rather than discharging the employee who as discussed has several negative consequences, writing a final warning can be the best alternative. The written warning should clearly indicate that future infractions will lead to immediate termination hence this is the last chance. The written warning should have no expiration date as a way of motivating the employee to keep working as expected (Klingner, Nalbandian & Llorens, 2015). The document should be signed by the employee or a witness. However, it is necessary for the authority to discuss with the employee on the reason behind the incompetence depicted and if willing to rectify, the employee should sign the final warning. This solution will satisfy both the union and the company while at the same time be considerate to the employee who the only source of income may be the job.
Possible Results and Obstacles to Implementation
The company will have saved on the expenses and time for recruiting a new worker and at the same time maintain the skills depicted in Mr. Downes who has had no complaints from the company in regards to playing his roles. However, there might be obstacles in implementing this solution such as other workers may not see the negativity involved with failure to adhere to the business rules. As such, other workers may not put much effort since they will be aware that no severe action can be taken against them such as termination. This is not only an obstacle but also a possible result of poor service delivery by the workers since they will be aware that a severe action such as termination cannot be made against them. The external trends that may enhance successful implementation of the alternative are a minimization of legal confrontations and saving both cost and time of hiring a new employee to fill Mr. Downe position.
References
Klingner, D., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. J. (2015). Public personnel management. New York: Routledge.
Pearson, O. (2017). Steps to Discharge Employees. Smallbusiness.chron.com. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/steps-discharge-employees-12814.html
