What would you do?

HRockets · February 2005

We are an at-will city. An employee who is still on 6-month probation has caused an embarrassment to the city. Now that a police report has been filed would you say thanks for the past two months and good-bye or would you slap his hand and ask that he promise not to do it again? I'm new to the forum and have enjoyed reading your many comments in the past.

Hunter1 · February 2005

I think we'd need a little more information to go on. What is the nature of the embarassment? What type of position does the employee occupy, etc. Even though you are at-will, you need to consider the possibility of potential basis for suits, etc.

mwild31 · February 2005

Welcome HRockets! More information please xpray

crawfod · February 2005

Welcome, our City policy says, "During the probationary period, an employee may be dismissed at any time, with or without cause, with no rights to appeals and hearing." Assuming you have similar wording, your choice has to be based on how serious the offense was, etc. Having a police report filed doesn't sound very good, but more details might help us give you more input.

HRockets · February 2005

The employee is a non-exempt employee and in a public setting misrepresented the city.

crawfod · February 2005

You say "The employee is a non-exempt employee and in a public setting misrepresented the city." Yet apparently this misrepresentation resulted in a police report being filed? Sorry, but not enough facts yet.

deniseE · February 2005

was the embarrassment something that was a violation of actualy policy...do you have some kind of behavior that can be redirected? How have similar situations in the past been handled?

or are you just looking for an exit door?

System · February 2005

Your employee is 'at-will' as long as he's in that probationary period. After that, he is entitled to a process before being terminated. If you believe the offense is from a behavior that isn't likely to change, don't wait until the employee completes the probation to get rid of him. I agree with the others that it depends on the gravity of the embarrassment as to your decision about firing him or issuing a discipline.

Crout · February 2005

Don't be misled. Since you're a public employer, your Probationary policy will NOT shield you from liability no matter how carefully it is worded. If you fire someone in week 2 of their employment for exercising their First Amendment rights you can be sued in Federal Court the same as if you fired someone after 10 years. And labeling the behavior as "misrepresentation" won't help you either. You have to carefully look at precisely what the person did....the overt, observable behaviors...then make your judgement.

Don D · February 2005

It's unlikely that 'misrepresentation' would result in a police report. Unless he posed as a police officer or city official and was not one. If that's the case, fire him.

TN HR · February 2005

Can you please stop mincing words! If you want sound advice then please give us all the facts! Are you embarassed or afraid to post something graphic? To what level did he "misrepresent" the city? How do you define this behavior? Was he caught masturbating in a city vehicle while parked in a school zone or was it something a little less exposing (pun intended) like showing-up tipsy at a Town Hall meeting?

Please, in the interest of helping yourself, give us the details!

ScorpioHR · February 2005

"Can you please stop mincing words! If you want sound advice then please give us all the facts! Are you embarassed or afraid to post something graphic? To what level did he "misrepresent" the city? How do you define this behavior? Was he caught masturbating in a city vehicle while parked in a school zone or was it something a little less exposing (pun intended) like showing-up tipsy at a Town Hall meeting?

Please, in the interest of helping yourself, give us the details! "

Excuse me, but your point could have been made or your questions asked without being so crude about it. Do you think there are enough exclamation points? I did. Actually, this looks like something that would appear in "The Star" or Enquirer.
If that is what the forum has come to I will ask for my membership money back.
scorpio

marc · February 2005

Misrepresenting is such a fuzzy word. Politicians do it all the time. If we were able to invoke the "At-Will" doctrine for them, none of them would make it past the 6 month probationary period.x}>

Causing embarassment is also not an offense that would normally be a reason to terminate. I think my wife is embarrassed by 3 out of 5 of my clothing choices. Sometimes she just laughs as I am ready to go out the door.

But if the embarrassment is because of whistleblowing, then you have a "whole nuther kettle of fish" to worry about.

That's why posters are asking for a bit more detail, and can then give targeted advice.

HRockets · February 2005

The employee and friends were at a new local restaurant/bar. The manager refused to serve them any more alcohol as the evening progressed. The employee was becoming loud and disorderly. He confronted the manager at which time the employee informed the manager he was in the zoning dept., which he is not, and could shut the restaurant/bar down. The employee is a new tech person in the IT dept.

Later that night they called the restaurant/bar and asked, "what time do you leave?" The manager felt the intent was to threaten her into being afraid to leave the building. We do not know for a fact that it was our employee who placed the calls or his friends.

So far, after reading the police report he was not truthful when we asked if he informed the manager that he was employed with the city. He said he never told the manager he was employed with the city, it was his friends who said he was. According to the police report he told the manager he was employed with the city as the code enforcement officer in the zoning dept.

I hope this is sufficient information. There will not be any action at this time. The fact finding phase is still ongoing.

I appreciate the replies and I will improve on posting sufficient information in the future.

Don D · February 2005

I hate to jump the gun if the investigation is not conclusive. But, if what you suspect is in fact what turns up in the investigation, this employee would be gone. Behavior like this in a new employee is always, ALWAYS a sign of more to come.

System · February 2005

I agree with Don. If your suspicions are confirmed, the employee will cause you more grief sooner or later. There's no doubt about it.

Hunter1 · February 2005

I, too, represent a city. I would argue for suspension at this time, pending the final results of the investigation. This is not a freedom of speech issue, and if the police investigation results in a finding like you say it reports now, the employee would be gone.

Crout · February 2005

Yeah, and since he's a geek you'd better change his passcodes now and lock him out of your systems until the matter is resolved.

pork1 · February 2005

I agree, suspend and without pay pending the completion of the investigation. This way everyone is protected. If he is not guilty and innocent of all allegations the city can reinstate and pay back wages.

PORK

Whatever · February 2005

I agree he should be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

I don't believe terminating someone for "embarrassing" a city is the way to go. At the very least, he threatened someone. He lied on a police report. He may very well have broken the law. The city's "embarrassment"
is a result of this person's actions. If the investigation proves the charges, he should be terminated for his actions and not because the city is "embarrassed".

HRockets · February 2005

Thank you for your responses. This is a wonderful tool for HR folks. I am glad to be a part of this forum.

crawfod · February 2005

HRockets, is this now a criminal investigation conducted by the Police based on some charges filed by the bar Manager, or an internal City investigation to determine his future? If it's an internal investigation, I would like to think you would involve his IT Department Head for their input as to his actual job performance, not to minimize the allegations of this off duty incident, mind you, and also then interview the employee to of course get his version and attitude, and go from there, considering all factors.

HRockets · February 2005

His supervisor and dept. head have been informed of the situation. His supervisor said he has superb work ethics, very knowledgeable, and sensitive to the needs of the staff. He's a young man who unfortunatley made a poor decision under the influence of alcohol.

crawfod · February 2005

Ok, so there don't appear to be any criminal charges pending, no newspaper headlines, no public demands for his head, a department head who seems willing to give him a second chance, and hopefully an employee who realizes his city job requires responsible conduct both on and off the job, then I can see keeping him, although you may want to consider extending his probationary period, if your rules allow that. Naturally he needs to understand what the future holds for further incidents.

On the other hand, you have also hinted at some honesty issues. Employees will make bad decisions from time to time, but the ones you have to watch are the ones who will deny their guilt, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you can't depend on reliable communications from an employee, then you've got troubles.

Don D · February 2005

I would tend to disagree with the supervisor. Early in a probationary period it may be a bit premature to judge whether or not one has a 'superb work ethic'. I really would feel uncomfortable turning over the IT system of the city (?) to a young man who has shown such immaturity and glaringly poor judgement. If you keep this employee, my bet is that the next time he's at a bar with his buddies the discussion will turn to the confidential information he has access to. Six months at the drive through window in the water department is the only way I'd keep him.

Evergreen · February 2005

I agree with you Don D.

I own an IT consulting organization. The 2 people that you want to be the most trustworthy are the CFO and the IT guy. The IT guy owns the keys to the kingdom. All it takes is some booze and some dares and he will spill the info, and sometimes it doesn't even take the booze. I get many calls to "come in, and clean up" after the IT guy is fired or hauled off by the police. IT staff need to be held accountable if they enter the profession (do they even teach accountability in college anymore?). So if he isn't truthful, you hold him accountable, separate him from employement with your organzation, wihtout hesitation.

What would you do?

Comments