exempt problem

globex

I have an exempt employee who has had more time off for "illnesses", in the four or so months he has been with us than my employees who have been with us for years. He does has not, obviously, accumulated any sick or personal time and he does not "repay" the days by working weekend days. I have written up his absenses, to no avail and now, I am at a loss as to what to do. I do not think probabtion is acceptable for being off because of sickness but feel I need to do something. Any thoughts?

Balloonman

If he has been repeatedly warned, and this is documented why would you not terminate this individual? Can't be a good employee if you are not there.
Let him go, or with the next write up set and expectation of what is unexceptable, more than 1 absence in the next 90 days, and failure to comply will result in termination. I would terminate though.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

HRICA

Have you or your supervisor talked to him about this? Has there been a verbal warning or discussion. There may be more to this than you are aware at present (aka ADA). If he does not have a valid reason, I'm with DJ.

ritaanz

Does he have doctor's documentation of his illnesses or just calls in sick? I will assume that since you have written him up for his absences, there are no notes. Why are you wasting your's and the company's time with this loser? So far he has ignored your written warnings. What more do you need? Sit the fellow down, tell him his wish is granted. He can stay in bed tomorrow and thereafter.

AJ SPHR

If you have a bonafide sick leave policy, and he hasn't yet accrued sick time according to your policy, you have the right to dock his sick days in full day increments (this is in response to your statement that he does not "repay" the days by working weekends). Perhaps if it starts impacting his paycheck he may get his absence history under control.

Ultimately, though, I agree with others who suggest cutting your losses if his overall performance warrants it.

globex

Actually, we are so small and relatively so new, we do not accumulate sick time.

mwild31

What's the nature of his illnesses? Do you know? Are they random days off here or there for medical reasons? Was it due to a major illness? Is he a single parent taking care of a sick child?

I'm asking the questions, because I don't understand why you wouldn't just let him go if his performance (and performance includes attendance issues) wasn't up to par with the rest of the employees. Is someone else in management cutting him a break because they know something about his illnesses that you don't?

globex

There is no particular illness "history". One time it was he got so upset with what a customer said, he had to go home to take some blood pressure med. ('ee is Aftican American). Another time, he had to take care of one of his kids (recent divorcee w/four kids...not my problem, right). I forget off the top of my head what the others were but generally non-doctor except for one incident. When I hired him, I had him hourly. He said something to the effect, it has been many years since he has had to punch a clock. At the end of a month, I puot him on salary and the absences started! Duh!
Obviously, I do not want to jepordize the exempt status although as I said, he does not make up the time.

marc

Does the position justify the exempt status? If you started him hourly, it makes me think this was a non-exempt position. If you cannot justify the position as being exempt, then put him back to hourly. Some non-exempt positions are salaried, but they have a 40 hour week built into the job. More hours still equals OT pay, less hours means a dock in pay.

Think about putting him back to hourly. That will more closely align attendance with pay, maybe it will effect his mindset.

MS HR

>Think about putting him back to hourly. That
>will more closely align attendance with pay,
>maybe it will effect his mindset.


put him back on hourly. you can always do this without the wrath of d.o.l. It's when you go the other way (non-exempt to exempt) that they get into a tizzy.

globex

Thanks, that also might get him to quit, which would solve part of my problem. As a matter of curiosity, if you have done this, what did you tell the 'ee?

MS HR

i simply told the person that it was a management decision to pay him in full for the hours he works and i left it at that. no explanation is necessary. and he can't complain the d.o.l. because you are paying him in full for the hours he works.

(just be sure to control the overtime hours by insisting that a supervisor approve the need for overtime in advance and in writing.)

and one other thing is to make sure that if there may be any other employee in the exact same job category that the same decision would apply to them as well.

mwild31

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 11-26-03 AT 05:28PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Globex. What is it that you are looking for? It seems the more questions that are asked, more of the story unfolds. If you're looking for advice, here it goes:

1. Either let the ee go or write him up for the absences and outline clear consequences for future infractions.
2. Rewrite your attendance policy to include something to the effect: "Unexcused or unauthorized absence’s beyond six days per year will be considered excessive and can be grounds for dismissal or his/her status will be changed to part time status with no benefits. Additionally, absences beyond four days in six months may be noted in the employees personnel file and can also be grounds for dismissal or a change in employment status."
3. Immediately change his status to non-exempt - how to say it? You could try, "It's come to my attention that management made a mistake when re-classifying you as exempt. Upon futher research, I realize that we should have continued to classify you as non-exempt. Effective immediately, your status is changed to non-exempt." (Even as non-exempt, you can still pay him on a salary basis (by-passing the clocking in & out each day) - you would just have to pay the OT - have him complete a timeticket & turn it in on a daily or weekly basis.)
4. In the future, don't ever classify an ee as exempt because they ask for it or as a means to appease their desires, do it because there is a bonafide company business need for an exempt position and then hire that way.

Whatever

Assuming you have an attendance policy follow it. He's been warned. Now is the time to suspend or terminate depending on what your policy is.

Hatchetman

Are you questioning about the exempt and pay situation or are you upset that he has excessive absences? Or both?

What is the emplyee's explanation for the numerous absences due to illness?

globex

both and he fails to realize his respondibility to the company. I am going to follow the suggestions above about putting him on the clock and hourly.

Hatchetman

That may be do-able. But remember the possible impact. If you have other employees doing the same job, you may be jeopardizing their positions' exempt status. This is a controversial issue as individuals have different views on this (whether making one position non-exempt does or does not jeopardize all similar exempt positions doing the exact same duties). Remember what is made exempt is the job not the employee or individual position that does the same duties as the other exempt positions. While you can always deem a position that qualifies as exempt to be non-exempt, there may be a "cost" for doing so.

Consult legal advice before doing it.

Don D

>and he fails to realize his respondibility to >the company

This sort of jumped off the page at me. Am I the only one? All the other conversation aside, this is what would determine my course of action.

globex

Don:

Good to hear from you...I was afraid I was going to miss your pearls.
My wife and I created and own the business. We are devoted to it, as a child (which we have none of). When I worked for others, I always gave 100%. I am 60 and that was then. I am never sure whether what I expect if unreasonable as the 'ee's these days are different from what I "grew up" with. Most of them do not seem to understand commitment, allegiance or responsibility. That is why I said that - I do not know if I expect too much.

Don D

I remember that my dad, shortly after I went to work full time, told me that people his dad's age always gave 100% and he thought his own age group (the WWII group) was more dedicated to work than my age group, which didn't seem to have the commitment, besides our hair was too long. Now I find myself saying those same types of things to my working son. So that's four generations whose commitment I'm not exactly sure of. I think a person who owns a business should give at least 110% and he should expect that his employees be no further behind him than 10.5%. x:-)

Hatchetman

Just remember, you DO have a lot more involved with your company than your employers do, so the committment would be expected to be far greater. Unless your employees have been with you for years, I doubt that any new emplyee would consider emplyment in your company to require any more commitment than any other 8 to 5 job in any other company.

Two or three generations ago, employees were committed to the same emplyer for almost their entire work lives: employees primailry grew up and lived in the same town; they probably went to many of the same functions and activities the owner went to. The committment was tow way though. The cwoners committment may have also been not only to the employee but to the employee's family in some manner; and int exchange, the empolyee was supportive of the employer in just about everything that occurred in the community.

By the time the depression ended and WWII ended, the work environment was undergoing major changes and the two-way committment was over.

There may not be an easy answer for you to find employees who will reach the committment you need and want without figuring out how to balance their sense of privacy and family or personal live with your need for total committment.

GBeaty

Why are you keeping him at all? If you have already documented his lack of dependability and he continues to be out he should be gone. Remember that to have an ADA claim there must be a real or perceived disability, I don't see anything that would indicate that. Also he's not qualified for FMLA. Just because he's exempt doesn't mean he is not required to come to work everyday and do the job he was hired to do. Hold everyone accountable to the same standards and you are fine. No one would expect an employer to keep someone that doesn't come to work regularly. You're much better off to cut your losses now.

One final note. I sure wouldn't change his status to hourly to address his attendance issues. A position should be classified as exempt or non-exempt based solely on the job duties and responsibilities. If it qualifies as exempt so be it, if not it's hourly no matter how loud someone whines.

I hope this helps a little.

gb

MS HR

If it qualifies as
>exempt so be it, if not it's hourly no matter
>how loud someone whines.
>
>The point, GB, is that even if the duties qualify for exempt-hood, management can still designate it as non-exempt and pay for hours worked.