ethical dilemma

mushroomHR

A long-time employee of ours was terminated for a very, very serious violation of company and EEOC rules. I know this for a fact because I was part of the whole process. I recently discovered that this employee is receiving unemployment compensation. I could be wrong but I doubt that compensation would have been awarded if the truth had been told to the unemployment bureau as to why this employee was terminated. My thoughts are that the owner of the company who reported this to the bureau did not tell the truth on the form as to the reason for termination and this upsets me a great deal.

I don't think there is anything I can do about this and maybe it just makes me feel better getting this off my chest because I don't feel this person who was terminated deserves a penny after what they did. My real reason for posting this is to see if any of you think something unethical may have happened which would have allowed this claim. It shocks me to think that the owner would have lied on the form. If nothing more, thanks for letting me get this out.

Rockie

There's really nothing you can do "after the fact". Who gets the forms in your office - Human Resources or the owner of the company? If HR doesn't get these, there is no control over what is sent back as to the reason for termination.

It could simply be that the owner just never responded period. In SC, if there is no response, the employee gets UI.

Shadowfax

Not necessarily any ehtical issues involved here at all. Rockie's probably right, no response = unemployment comp. Besides, there could be anymanner of 'serious violation of company rules ' that would not rise to the level of disqualification for unemployment comp. Unemployment operation in Mi is so ee biased, most ers have concluded it just costs grief and production to take time to fight, and a loss is predictable. So, let them collect. Let it go.

Don D

I agree with Rockie. There may have simply been a decision made to not contest the UI and not returning the card accomplishes that and UI is awarded. Surely your HR department would have been involved in some part of that process. If the card WAS filled out than another piece of mail came to the company stating that the claimant had been determined eligible, thereby giving the company an opportunity at appeal. Who gets all this stuff at your place? If you have the authority to do so, you should tell whoever receives and distributes your mail that this sort of thing goes to HR.

When you say 'owner of the company' I am assuming you mean someone who actually owns the business where you work. In that event, it's his UI tax rate that is affected and his experience rating that is increasing down at the UI office.

mushroomHR

I'm the one who gets all the unemployment information at our office and respond. I could not respond to this particular claim because I was involved in it personally which is why the owner responded, and I know for a fact that he did. We've had other cases where an ex-employee did something much less serious than this ex-employee and they were denied benefits which is why I believe the owner lied on the response. Guess I do have to let it go but in light of the circumstances it is a very hard pill for me to swallow. Thanks for your responses.

ScorpioHR

"Guess I do have to let it go but in light of the circumstances it is a very hard pill for me to swallow. Thanks for your responses"

I know how you feel! See post "Its a dooozziiee" or something like that- It is hard when we have to bow or look the other way, especially when it is supposed to be our job's to avoid this type of issue-I agree with everyone else. If the boss does not care that the ee got UI, forget it-Maybe he/she just did not want whatever the "serious violation" was to be public record.
scorpio

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-21-04 AT 04:16AM (CST)[/font][br][br]"I could not respond to this particular claim because I was involved in it personally which is why the owner responded,"

I'll edit this since it sounded a bit too harsh; but, in essence said that I do not believe we should 'recuse' ourselves from the processes of our jobs because 'we are involved'. Facts are facts and the truth should have been put on the form and mailed. Now, can it be that you want the ex-employee to suffer a bit more than they have? It sounds like since you 'were involved' you not only wanted the person fired but you also want them not to draw UI. Is there something personal going on here?

mushroomHR

Nothing personal--just don't think it is fair for this person to draw unemployment because the owner did not answer truthfully. We were truthful about others and their claims were denied.

Don D

Well, take us out of the dark here. How and why were you personally involved in this situation and what about that caused you to recuse yourself from the process?

Dasher

When you received the UI request for info and felt you could not objectively respond, you gave the owner the responsibility to respond in your place. As HR professionals we are almost always "personally" involved in investigations and circumstances that lead to terminations, etc. It can not prevent us from being objective and deciding what is most in line with laws, regulations, policies and organizational values --thus clearing up any ethical dilemma we must face.

Depending on the relationship -- I might want to (nonjudgmentally) discuss it with the owner in order to guide our future understandings. However, I agree with the other forum posters -- you might be best served by letting this one go.

Whatever

I don't know the facts in your situation. However, I have on some very rare occasions not challenged a UI claim that I knew was undeserved because it was the cheapest way to make a problem go away. I have never lied to the unemployment office, I simply did not challenge the claim.

dlail

I haven't read all of the responses so I may be duplicating an opinion. You might want to consider asking the responder if s/he did not request non-charging, or failed to respond timely. If s/he decided not to contest the charging, ask for the reasoning just to be clear. Sometimes the decision is based on cutting losses. It may be the cost of unemployment charges and rate may have been exceeded by the costs litigation. You put yourself on the line as part of the process, I would hope the individual/owner whatever would understand that you feel undermined and an explanation isn't asking too much. Ultimately the business owner has the responsibility for a final decision.

I hope you'll not leave the matter unaddressed. Good Luck,
dlail

ritaanz

Barb, how serious is serious. Here, in order to disqualify an individual from collecting, the termination must be catagorized as gross misconduct. How does the Unemployment Agency define that? The employer needs to prove that the misconduct has a value (cost?)of $10,000.00 or more.

Unethical doesn't cut it.

mushroomHR

Let's just say that when my employer found out about this person's conduct (which had been going on for almost 10 years) and had they had not terminated the person on advice of counsel, another employee and I could possibly be the current owners of the company. This person displayed very "gross" misconduct and EEOC could have had a field day with this case. We have had people denied unemployment for failing a drug test, and another denied for lying about product test results, which is why I am fairly certain that had the truth been told the ex-employee I am writing about would not have received unemployment because his conduct was much worse.

Don D

Your killing us 'Shroom. What did the man do for cryin' out loud?

mushroomHR

Sorry, but I can't tell you. However, when I say "gross" misconduct, I mean really "GROSS" misconduct.

Hunter1

Sounds like a situation I became aware of in a former job: GROSS misconduct. I, too, will leave that for another day. On another note, the employer should be careful of what's put on the UC form. Could very well be discoverable in some other proceeding.

dchr9203

Hmmm, interesting. The UI forms I sign have a little statement that attests to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided. I would probably talk to the corporate attorney or do some "anonymous" investigating through the UI office. Aside from that, it impacts your experience ratings and your UI premium, so if the owner wants to take the potential expense on, oh well.

mushroomHR

HR Insight had a very good article in their October issue about not challenging unemployment decisions. After reading this article I understand why some cases should not be challenged. Perhaps this was one of them. I'll never know. Thanks for all of your posts.

ritaanz

That's it? I think if one posts a "dilemma", us good folks at The Forum should get all the facts. What's gross to one man is not necessarily gross to another.