The Main Issue
Employment termination always come and go in the industry. However, termination undergoes certain processes and clarifications in order to avoid issues from arising. These issues originated from several reasons, depending on how the human resource department tackles the situation. Most of the time, the human resource department is knowledgeable enough of the policies and regulations of the company, which eases their decision-making about termination, especially if an employee violated one of the policies. Also, termination processes also include documentations in order to verify the claims and statements of both the HR department and the employee to be fired. Lastly, the performance and output of the employee will also be considered, whether the employee satisfies and fulfills the requirements that the company has been expected of him (Gleckel, 2011). However, not all these factors can be applied at the same time in all cases; there might be just one or two of these which are applicable in the situation, so the HR must not create misleading issues which deviate away from the main reasons for termination. It is important to focus on the main reasons alone, because doing so will exercise fairness of the decision, and avoid conflicting statements. However, there are times when conflicts actually occur, and it is difficult to deal with this situation because the truth cannot be extracted easily, and it needs further investigations and legal actions to make termination validated,
The Situation
An employee was fired because of the issue regarding alcohol. The employee was accused of operating a heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol. The machinery consumes a relatively huge portion of space in the facility where it is located. Because of this, it is important that the operator should always stay alert and focus during the operation. The lack of control of the machinery might cause a huge problem, which, at worst, can destroy the whole facility itself. However, the fired employee stated and insisted that he is not under the influence of alcohol during the operation. Because of this, the employee was still confused why the department has reached a decision to fire him. The employee seeks a legal consultant in order to deal with the situation as well as to protect his rights as an employee.
Analysis of the Case
A similar case of dismissal because of issues about working while under the influence of alcohol can be reflected in the court case of Ricketts v. Parson Domestic Abuse Project (2011). The case is about the issue of Ms. Ricketts, who was found to be ‘acting strangely’ at work. Her colleagues stated this behavior of Ricketts at work, but there is no clear evidence that she was really drunk when she arrived at work. Due to her background as a woman who has alcoholic issue, she was dismissed at work, claiming that she committed a grave misconduct at work. However, Ricketts claimed that the dismissal was unfair for her, as she stated that she did not consume any alcohol in the past nine weeks, and that there is no evidence to support that she did come to work drunk. In the end, Rickett’s claim was considered to be reasonable, in addition to the lack of evidence which would accuse her of a violation of the project’s policy. However, she still faced the complaints regarding her absenteeism because it was her responsibility as an employee (Ricketts v. Parson Cross Domestic Abuse Project, 2011).
Company Liabilities
If the company was proven to have made wrongful decisions regarding the termination of an employee, then the company will be liable for any benefits that had been taken away from the terminated employee. Most of the time, the employee will file legal complaints against the company. Nevertheless, the company must do something as a form of compensation.
One of the liabilities in which the company might be reminded of comes in the form of an insurance. The insurance is called as the Employment Practices Liability Insurance, or EPLI. This insurance will guarantee benefits of an employee when he or she is terminated without a concrete evidence, or anything that supports the accusation. The benefits come in the form of monetary value which will value up to $3000 annually. Moreover, the benefit increases if the company already has a history of wrongful termination (Thompson, n.d). This insurance is very helpful in a way that the company will not make hasty decisions and misleading accusations against the employee who was allegedly suspected of misconduct. Furthermore, the fairness in decision-making will be made fair for most of the time because it will be a huge loss for the company since they will sustain the needs of the employee who are deserving of the job if they were not mistakenly dismissed.
Another liability which might or might not be included in the EPLI package is the business liability. Here, the employee will be further protected against attacks against them which are either personal, or unnecessary. These attacks might have no basis because and might be irrelevant on how the employees did their jobs. Business insurance will protect these employees against these baseless accusations. Also, the benefits vary depending on the profession, and the employees will be guaranteed reasonably (Thompson, n.d).
Recommendation
In accordance with these regulations, it is highly possible that the company might be liable to their dismissal of the heavy machinery operator. As such, it is recommended for the administrators, if possible, to reconsider their initial decision of dismissal. At the current time, the evidence that will push the case against the operator is still not enough. Moreover, it is also important to hear the sentiments of the employee. Maybe there are other reasons as to why his behavior upon work is not appropriate. The equality and truth must be heard, and if it is still not enough, a thorough investigation will be recommended.
However, it is not likely that the employee will be responsible for his actions. After all, his responsibility of operating the heavy equipment is crucial for both the productivity and safety of the company and other employees, respectively. The employee might be sued for misconduct, but it is not enough for immediate termination. The boss will be recommended that the employee must be given another chance to change his behavior. His skills on operating the machinery is significantly needed by the company, and there is no immediate replacement for him who has the same skill as he has. However, this will be possibly the last chance for the employee. At the next time, even though he was not under the influence of alcohol, as long as his behavior is worse, he will not be tolerated anymore.
References
Fair Work Ombudsman. (n.d). Unfair Dismissal. Retrieved 08 July, 2016, from https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/unfair-dismissal
Gleckel, A. (2011). Legal Considerations When Terminating an Employee. Retrieved 07 July, 2016, from http://www.hr.com/en/articles/legal-considerations-when-terminating-an- employee_gsbtye9h.html.
Ricketts v. Parson Cross Domestic Abuse Project, Xpert HR (2011). Retrieved 08 July, 2016, from http://www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/employee-who-attended-work-drunk-was- unfairly-dismissed/110371/
Thompson, S. (n.d). Does Business Liability Insurance Cover Wrongful Termination? Retrieved 08 July, 2016, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/business-liability-insurance-cover- wrongful-termination-69567.html
