Dismissal

Let’s say that your child listens to you carefully at the dinner table (an unusual event – at least if my dinner table is anything to go by). 

And then she decides to post on a social networking site comments about how you don’t like your boss and/or how your boss is incompetent (because that’s the sort of thing you’re disposed to saying at your end of the dinner table). 

Then let’s then say the boss reads these comments:  does that give rise to a potential workplace problem? 

An article on an American website this week suggests that, at least under US law, it could – and (at least if the reported case is anything to go by) the employee could find him or herself out of a job! 

I’m not convinced that the same issues would necessarily arise under New Zealand law – but it is certainly possible that this type of incident could, depending on its facts, give rise to a workplace problem. Wow.  Better monitor that child’s Bebo account!

An interesting article last week on Gruntled Employees about the way in which an employer should approach a termination meeting. 

Using the adage “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” the author suggests that an employer should adopt some, but not all, of the Court room standard.  

This suggestion is that employers should tell the truth to employees who are being dismissed, and that no lies will be added to “sugar coat” the experience. 

At the same time, employers should not go beyond what is required – so as to present the employee with a complete picture of everything that they might dislike about him or her – and the employer should leave out the “frankly I don’t like you” part as well. 

Under New Zealand law, section 120 of the Employment Relations Act requires (if an employee requests) an employer to provide reasons for a person’s dismissal.  Surely these reasons would be confined to those suggested by the authors of Gruntled Employees – namely, a statement of truth, rather than a comprehensive accumulation of everything giving rise to the demise of the employment relationship?  And the advice about not lying to “sugar coat” a dismissal is surely correct, isn’t it?

Air Force One

Here’s a scenario that may sound familiar:  You have an employee who is well-liked, perhaps not top shelf, but not incompetent…and who makes one, single massive mistake at work.  As a responsible HR professional do you (a) allow the person the dignity of resignation or (b) dismiss them as a demonstration of your values? 
An example of this sort of situation in New Zealand was the Oram case, where a reporter gave a description of a man who was alledged to be the head of a crime syndicate, and told him to take his picture while he was in a cafe.  The photographer took a picture of a man fitting the description…only it was a social worker, not a crime boss.  The photo ran with the story - much to the social worker’s horror : fire the reporter, or let him resign? 
Kris Dunn - at the HR Capitalist - recently considered this issue in the context of the fellow who recently arranged for Air Force One to flyover downtown Manhattan with an F-16 escort.  It was intended to be a statement of patriotism, but instead caused mass panic…