Comments on: Fired worker gets paid for unused vacation, despite company’s policy http://www.hrlegalnews.com/fired-worker-gets-paid-for-unused-vacation-despite-companys-policy/ Up-to-the-minute cases and law impacting HR Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:01:31 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Norma Jean, HR California http://www.hrlegalnews.com/fired-worker-gets-paid-for-unused-vacation-despite-companys-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-9209 Norma Jean, HR California Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:25 +0000 http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1200#comment-9209 First of all, the employee should have been discharged for failing the company Mandatory Drug Testing policy and not for "gross misconduct". The company involved needs to update the verbiage in the Employee Handbook (as should every company due to the new Administration) and be extremely specific when it comes to "grounds for immediate termination" and the vacation pay policy in regards to termination. California is a very employee friendly State. You need to think of every scenerio that may come into play and address it in the form of a written policy. By the way, the Judge is wrong morally...but correct due to the company written policy. No gray area please... First of all, the employee should have been discharged for failing the company Mandatory Drug Testing policy and not for “gross misconduct”. The company involved needs to update the verbiage in the Employee Handbook (as should every company due to the new Administration) and be extremely specific when it comes to “grounds for immediate termination” and the vacation pay policy in regards to termination. California is a very employee friendly State. You need to think of every scenerio that may come into play and address it in the form of a written policy.
By the way, the Judge is wrong morally…but correct due to the company written policy. No gray area please…

]]> By: Terri http://www.hrlegalnews.com/fired-worker-gets-paid-for-unused-vacation-despite-companys-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-8940 Terri Fri, 15 May 2009 20:11:24 +0000 http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1200#comment-8940 Okay, this employer ran a 'drug-free workplace'. Because it was, the employee had to take a pre-employment drug test and entered into employment with the full understanding of this condition. Coming to work under the influence broke company policy and if the vacation policy states that there is no payout due to misconduct, then so be it. The courts decision is ridiculous - it's condoning the employees' lack of responsibility to abide by the 'drug-free' guidelines. So how would this situation be received if the employee had endangered/injured another employee or customer because they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Would the court consider that misconduct? Or split hairs over the meaning of misconduct? His attorney and the court seemed not be concerned about holding the employee accountable for coming to work in a sober state....instead the court focused only on the terminology and how it was presented in a handbook. Pretty sad. Okay, this employer ran a ‘drug-free workplace’. Because it was, the employee had to take a pre-employment drug test and entered into employment with the full understanding of this condition. Coming to work under the influence broke company policy and if the vacation policy states that there is no payout due to misconduct, then so be it. The courts decision is ridiculous – it’s condoning the employees’ lack of responsibility to abide by the ‘drug-free’ guidelines.

So how would this situation be received if the employee had endangered/injured another employee or customer because they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Would the court consider that misconduct? Or split hairs over the meaning of misconduct? His attorney and the court seemed not be concerned about holding the employee accountable for coming to work in a sober state….instead the court focused only on the terminology and how it was presented in a handbook. Pretty sad.

]]> By: Brian http://www.hrlegalnews.com/fired-worker-gets-paid-for-unused-vacation-despite-companys-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-8931 Brian Fri, 15 May 2009 17:12:22 +0000 http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1200#comment-8931 I see. So knowing that your employer does drug testing, not caring, and getting high anyway is NOT considered "deliberate" and "intentional"? I mean, I understand that the company could have re-worded the policy, but for a court to interpret the failed drug test that way is disappointing. I see. So knowing that your employer does drug testing, not caring, and getting high anyway is NOT considered “deliberate” and “intentional”? I mean, I understand that the company could have re-worded the policy, but for a court to interpret the failed drug test that way is disappointing.

]]>