Human Resource Blog

Revoking position transfer-leading to termination

We have an associte that has been with our company for some time now and overall is a good employee except that they are constantly tardy to work. This employee has been addressed on many occasions about their attendance and even suspended because of the problem. The issue that I am now faced with is that the employee was told by one of the owners that they would be transfered to another department that has a later start time as a last resort to try and save there job - but I now understand that a dilemma has come up in that the person they were going to swap out in the other department may not want to move and they are now going to terminate the employee based on the attendance problems.

My question is can we legally terminate this employee after telling them that they would be transfered and given one last chance simply because we did not discusse it with the other employee first?

We are located in Alabama and I really need some direction on how to deal with this urgent matter.

Thanks,

This is a tough situation but in Alabama, you can probably let this employee go without fear of repercussions.

In many states, the state department of labor would enforce any verbal promises made to employees about hours and days of work, wages, and similar matters. Because Alabama has so few laws that protect employees, that is not a concern here.

Frankly, this situation was handled badly from the start. As you are learning, showing up on time is an essential part of being a good employee. An employee who is tardy constantly is not a good employee, no matter how spectacular her performance is after she arrives. Even if the employee has a good reason for tardiness (child care, transportation, other commitments) the bottom line is that you need employees who will be on time consistently.

If you were willing to switch this employee to another department to accommodate her tardiness, that should have been done from the start, instead of writing her up or suspending her. This is actually a poor practice. The best practice in HR is to hire an employee who can work the hours and days that you need — not to rearrange your shifts to accommodate the employee.

When you make a “last ditch” effort to “save the employees job” what she learns is that you have a vested interest in NOT firing her — and therefore there are no consequences for her actions. When other employees see this, they also assume that they can do whatever they like, without fear of being fired. In reality, the person who needs to “save the employees job” is the employee herself — and the way she does that is by showing up on time. If she is not able to do so, even for the best of reasons, then this job is not a good fit and she needs to find a job elsewhere. However, hindsight is always 20/20.

When you choose to suspend an employee, that should be the final step before termination. Ideally, suspension sends a clear message that the next stop is termination, unless the employee changes her behavior. When the manager suspends the employee and then an owner accommodates her with a new schedule, the owner undermines the managers authority and sends mixed messages to all the employees. This makes it difficult or impossible for the manager to successfully do her job.

When the manager tries to enforce reasonable workplace rules, and the owner overrides them, that is a toxic work situation for both the manager and the employees.

Again, in some states you would be legally obligated to honor the verbal commitment made to the employee. In Alabama, you can simply verbally withdraw that verbal commitment. Tell the employee that your efforts to get her into another department were unsuccessful, and you will have to let her go the next time she is tardy. Then follow through, please.