STATE OF THE ART TERMINATION: A CASE OPINION
The sample case narrates the experience of Bill , a computer support staff at a company who was terminated in a manner that offended and humiliated him. Bill already had prior ideas that he would be terminated because he knew that the company was undergoing a merger and his job was already duplicated in the process. He understood the company’s reason for terminating him and other colleagues. However, he was shocked at the manner that the company used to inform them about their termination. They were invited to a meeting at a nearby hotel and were informed that they would still get some benefits from the company such as full salary of six months and career counseling. Bill was humiliated when they were not allowed to return to their desks to clear their personal belongings and were directed to prepaid taxis to take them home.
Did the company strike the right balance between compassion for the terminated employees and the need to protect against possible harm?
The company was basically compassionate to the terminated employees. The employees were provided with the appropriate benefits and severance pay necessary for termination. The (2006) cites that an individual’s employment is severed if and when his/her employer dismisses or ceases to employ him/her for any cause, even if it is a result of insolvency or bankruptcy. This condition necessitates a severance pay which is a form of compensation provided to a qualified employee with severed employment. It is in recognition of a person’s years of service in the company. Severance pay is computed by multiplying the employee’s “regular wages for a regular work week” by the sum of the number of completed years of employment and the number of completed months of employment divided by twelve months for a year not completed.” In the case, the employments of the employees were severed due to redundancy of jobs caused by a merger. The terminated employees were provided with full payment equivalent to six months salary and unused accrued vacation leave. The termination meeting was also done in a confidential venue so as to protect the dignity of the employees. According to (2005) managing the risks of termination requires employers to be as sensitive as reasonably possible by terminating employees in an appropriate environment away from other employees and third parties. Bill and his colleagues were invited to a meeting at a hotel one block away wherein they were informed of their termination. The venue was appropriate since it was not within the premises of the corporate office where other employees might interrupt or cause humiliation to the terminated employees. However, the company failed to strike a balance between compassion and the need to protect itself from possible harm. Despite the fact that the consultant called the employees into a meeting to discuss the termination, the meeting had some missing components. The (2006) states that the manager or whoever is tasked to facilitate the termination meeting must be straightforward and clear to the employees and should advise them of the company’s decision to sever their employment, when the termination will take effect, and the reasons for termination. The manager is required to answer employee questions and allow any reactions without arguing with the employee. Also, for those terminated employees who have access to confidential material such as computer files, financial records, and corporate documentations, the manager must explain the need to deny the employees access to these information. The manager must make the terminated employees fully understand that the denial of access is not a manifestation of lack of trust but a measure to protect corporate security (). were not given ample explanation on the reason of the termination and why the company did not permit them to go back to the office. The fact that most of the terminated employees are computer support staff who are skilled in accessing corporate information through the database should have been considered by the consultant. The consultant’s failure to address the employees’ need for thorough understanding of the method of their termination caused them humiliation and a perception that the company did not trust them even after their years of service.
Was the humiliating treatment necessary for business reasons?
The treatment per se is necessary for business reasons but the humiliation that and his colleagues developed out of it is unnecessary. The company had the right to protect itself from possible danger that the terminated employees can cause especially since the terminated employees are computer experts who can manipulate any corporate data if still allowed continuous access to the corporate database. (2007) claims that corporate information theft is a crucial security concern for most companies today which leads to loss of customers, leak of confidential corporate details to competitors and even bankruptcy. The need to protect the company from both inside and out is crucial. Companies must set policies that employees have limited access to vital information while the data access rights of terminated employees must be revoked immediately. The company authorities in the case should have instructed the consultant to explain this matter to the terminated employees rather than hastily telling them that they would not be returning to the office and should not contact anyone in the company. The approach was offensive when it could have been explained effectively.
Do the employees have any rights with regard to the manner in which they are terminated?
Most employment relationships adopt an “at-will doctrine” wherein both the employee and employer regard the employment relationship as indefinite and voluntary. This means that the employee can resign from the job anytime and for whatever reason he may have while incurring no consequences in the process. In turn, the employer can terminate an employee for whatever reason that is not based on discriminatory notions (2007). The employer in the case is an at-will employer as it was able to cease the employment of some of its staff without a concrete explanation for doing so. However, (2007) argues that terminated employees can claim that their at-will employers defamed them by treating them in a manner that causes emotional distress or humiliation. Bill was upset and humiliated by the manner that the consultant delivered their termination. He did not understand why the company did not permit them to go back to their desks and arrange their things or even say goodbye to their friends. The (2006) cites that in cases where the terminated employees have access to critical corporate information, a manager or supervisor can be assigned to guide the employee in clearing his belongings until he leaves the company premises so as to ensure that he did not change anything on his computer that can sabotage the company (). Bill can consult an employee’s rights lawyer for advice on the matter to settle his emotional distress from the entire experience (2007).
Correspondingly, do employees owe terminated employees any kind of treatment?
The remaining employees in a company basically have no obligation to provide favorable or unfavorable treatment to terminated employees. Termination is a fundamental element of employment and most employees are aware that the employer can terminate anyone for economic and performance reasons. However, the loss of a colleague due to termination can have devastating impacts on the remaining employees. Feelings of confusion, divided loyalties, fear of the same thing possibly happening to them, and even guilt for still being part of the company can exist. Thus, even if most companies do not tolerate the remaining employees to interact with terminated employees and talk about the issue, these employees are still allowed to comfort, assist the terminated personnel in arranging their personal belongings, or stay with them until they leave the premises especially if they are a friend, an immediate supervisor or subordinate (2006). The remaining employees are not obliged to provide any kind of reaction or treatment to the terminated employees but the fact that someone has to go can impact employee morale and the spirit of teamwork.
0 comments:
Post a Comment