Management has followed progressive discipline Manager Marlboro Yes- Employer is already gave written warning and suspension to prior violation. As adopted progressive discipline, the next step can be predicted even with the case that not harm company license. However, In this case one of two rules that employee are suspected in can cost company to lose license, reputation and money In case of fire or explosion happen. Obviously, the penalty for this one should be heavier than written notice and temporary suspended.
Therefore, even with light penalty In this case still follow progressive adolescence proportion to case degree. Yes- Even though there Is no similar case mentioned before, the face that Marlboro scared to lose her lob means that company follows progressive adolescence because he already got written warning and suspension, next probably be discharge. Besides this citation- smoking near combustible product is more severe than her prior violated actions because it can cost company business license. The conclusion could be draw that punishment should be more extensive.
Step 5 : Evidence is documented and credible Yes- There is documented and credible evidence from officer. Even though Marlboro claimed that it was misunderstood situation, until she has new documented and credible evidence to prove her innocence, employer has every right to make decision based on this citation. Besides, even this case is proved to be misunderstood, still Marlboro did not follow Dishonesty rule by not bringing citation to employer. No- Marlboro claimed that she was biting a straw not smoking cigarette and there is no evidence support her innocence.
The only documented evidence is officer citation which is obviously not on her favor. Also she drives on the same route for 7 years. She knows where officer is. Why would she risk her career by smoking near tool booth? Suggestion: She should get contested on citation to prove her Innocence. Conclusion Due Process – As far as I concern, manager has been following the due process since step one. However, there are disadvantages In employee favor; since, there Is only one witness- officer and one document- citation Involved. So, Marlboro does not have documented proof to support her statement.
In order to complete due process, I would give her a chance to finish with contesting Clayton as she claimed that It Is on process and ask her to show documented and credible proof. Since she claimed that the reason she did not bring notice to employer because she is filing for contesting. She failed to present such document, obviously she has been telling a lie. Decision – As claimed, Marlboro thinks that it is Just misunderstood situation and she has no dead that citation should be handed to employer no matter what situation is.
In this case, I believe that guilty or not in smoking near combustible product should be decide after contested document presented. Obviously if she failed to present it, guilty is charged. However, violated dishonesty rule can be Judged now. In my point of view, she is clearly taking her chance by not reporting citation to employer. Unfortunately her plan does not work as it is called. She cannot use “does not know’ as an excuse since it is clearly written that it must be hand to employer.
Although, to make more caution decision, I as manager will ask officer whether when he hand Marlboro citation, he mentioned that this must be reported to employer. If the answer is yes, then here we go Big Guilty with no excuse. Penalty – If the result on both rules came out as guilty, Marlboro should be discharged. She has been working in company for 7 years. Employer can assume that she knows all the rule well and she still choose to violate them. Being nice to her may cost company big trouble in true and it will set standard to other employee to not strictly follow the rules.
However, if the result from one is guilty the other one is not, penalty could be discharge or long time suspend depend on which rule she violate. If she is guilty in proving not smoking, she is also guilty from pertaining the truth. Then it would fall into both charged guilty- discharge as a result. On the other hand, if she is proved not guilty in smoking and guilty in dishonesty, the penalty should be long time suspend, studying all company rules all over again and lower salary for periods.