Handling the Return to Work of an Employee Involved in a Scandal: A Case Study

Considerations for Handling the Return to Work

McDow began to mull things over in his mind. “We are not dealing with fighting on the job, here, so that older arbitration case is not instructive. But the matter about other employees who may not want to work with her is something to consider.” He started to list what he might be able to do here. “Isuppose we could just let her come back to work and see what happens. But, I don’t think Fisher (the VP of Human Resources) would think favorably about Gonzalez’s situation, however it came about.

He’s too ‘old school’ for these kinds of things. He’d probably support our firing her right away. Fisher certainly would not support paying her for any of her absences, given his strong stance on “no work/no pay.” McDow realized that, “if Gonzalez is fired, the CWA will probably grieve the decision. So I have to be careful to make sure our handling of the situation is rock-solid, with little exposure to losing the grievance, or, if it comes to that, the arbitration case.” McDow continued his personal debate. “I onder if a warning or suspension is an option—I don’t really think so, though, since it seems foolish to warn someone, ‘Don’t do these kinds of things during your personal time,’ since no company should be telling people how to spend their own time. We only discipline to rehabilitate on-the-job behavior.”

McDow was about to call Jackson and bring her up to speed on his conversation with Corey and to go over hisresearch when Jackson’s call to him came in.Jackson was newly agitated Gonzalez had just called again and left word that she was feeling better and would be returning to work the next day, Thursday. Gonzalez’s union steward also called and spoke to Brackett. The union representative told Brackett that she hoped that “management would butt out of Maria’s personal life” and wanted assurances that there would be no problem with Gonzalez’s returning to work. Jackson asked McDow what would be the best decision to make on how to handle Gonzalez’s return to work.

Exhibit 1: The Newspaper Article

School Teacher and Professional Athlete Arrested in Guns, Drug, and Porn Raid

Hackensack, May 5 (AP) A professional athlete, was charged with conspiring with Anthony DitaLyon Hawkes, was among those arrested on lia, 21, of West Orange, Victor  cocaine charges after Bergen County authorities Bloomfield, and Paul Taglio of Warren Township interrupted what appeared to be the filming of a in the operation of the alleged ring, the prosecupornographic movie at an apartment in Engle- tor said. wood, officials said today. “They were either in the process of making a In the raid early yesterday, authorities also pornographic film or pretending to shoot a sexualfound a woman was “very close to dying,” County scene,” Mr. Norburth said. “The men were in Prosecutor Michael Norburth said. a state of panic because of the condition of the The woman, identified as Yvonne Gonzalez of woman.”

Management's Options for Handling the Situation

Leonia, had apparently suffered a drug overdose Mr. Frascino was arrested at his home on and was taken to Bergen County Hospital. Ms. charges that he sold two ounces of cocaine and Gonzalez, who was charged with possession of Mr. Taglio and Rita Madden were arrested Satcocaine, was released from the hospital today. urday in Warren Township, Mr. Norburth said.

Investigators found eight ounces of cocaine, Authorities said they found two rifles and two a pistol and $7,000 in cash at the apartment, shotguns in the Warren Township home. where the athlete, 26 years old, and several other According to Mr. Norburth, a total of persons were found “wholly or completely naked” $300,000 worth of cocaine and an electronic scale with a movie camera that contained no film, Mr. used to measure the drug were seized. Norburth said. Also arrested in Englewood on charges of Newark Teacher Arrested possession of drugs with intent to distribute them were Lonnie Stuart, 24, of Dumont, Leroy Miner,

David Alongo, 31, a Newark high school teacher, 26, of Palisades Park, Ted Pine, 28, of Newark,was arrested later at his home here after authori- Jamel Terry, 37, of Chicago, Matt Jankowicz, 26, ties discovered more than 3,000 amphetamines of Lyndhust, and Jack Rodino, 27, of Rutherford. and barbiturates allegedly in his possession.

Enterprise Wire Co. and Enterprise Independent Union (46 LA 359, 1966) The questions posed here are ones that will help you determine if a manager exercised his/her managerial rights appropriately in the administration of discipline. In other words, was the person disciplined with just cause or did the manager act in an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or discriminatory way? If a person can answer “NO” to even one of the questions below, then that decreases the likelihood that the discipline meets the standard of “just cause.”

1. Did the company give the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probably disciplinary consequences of the employee’s conduct? Rules must be established and communicated! Employees know the consequences of rule violations.
2. Was the company’s rule or managerial order reasonably related to the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the company’s business?

Work now, grieve later, except for the safety/integrityexceptions; employee must justify disobedience.

3. Did the company, before administering discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did, in fact, violate or disobey a rule, or order of management? Investigations must occur before discipline is meted. It is reasonable for an employee to offer anexplanation for his/her behavior. It is acceptable to suspend an employee while an investigation is happening, but this is an investigatory suspension.

If no error is found, pay for time lost is restored.

The investigatory suspension could convert to a disciplinary suspension.

Exhibit 2: continued

4. Was the company’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively? Manager may be investigator and judgebut should not also be the witness.Credibility may be an issue if there are no witnesses, so multiple investigatorsmay help test credibility.
5. At the investigation, did the investigator obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged? Evidence must be substantial andnot flimsy. Managers should seek out witnesses and evidence.
6. Has the company applied its rules, orders, and penalties evenhandedly and without discrimination to all employees?

Disparate treatment may cause a penalty to be reduced or set aside. If rules were poorly enforced or the company was lax in applying these, management must inform employees of renewed intent to enforce rules going forward.

Exhibit 3: continued

7. Was the degree of discipline administered by the company in a particular case reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense and (b) the record of the employee in his service with the company?

Does the penalty fit the crime?

Repeated violations of smaller rules with disciplinary penalties may, nonetheless, warrant a stiffer penalty

This case is based on real events and real organizations. Names and other identifying information have been changed to protect confidentiality. An earlier version of this case was presented at the North American Case Research Association Annual Meeting in October 2011. The author is appreciative of the valuable suggestions made by Debra Ettington and the anonymousreviewers at theCase Research Journal. The author thanks Seton Hall University for its support of the author’s sabbatical, when she began the initial work on this case.

The author also appreciates the support extended by the United States Military Academy when she was a visiting professor there, support which also helped to advance this manuscript.

Assignment Questions

Several assignment questions flow from this case. These are listed below and each one is subsequently addressed. In parenthesis, the learning objective (LO) or objectives linked to the assignment questions are provided.

1. What is the core issue in this case?
2. Is the company’s drug policy instructive in handling the matter?
3. Should the job or position of the employee make a difference in the action that Global may take?
4. Does it matter if this situation “is all just a big misunderstanding?”
5. What should Jerry McDow’s recommendation to Ann Jackson be about Maria Gonzalez’s desire to return to work?