Updating personnel rules is an endless task. Laws are constantly changing, and agencies are experiencing significant operational changes now more than ever. The responsibility of ensuring that all personnel rules are up to date and reflect both the legal requirements and the operational requirements is time-consuming and daunting. However, auditing personnel rules is one of
Prevention, Prevention, Prevention! It’s Time to Audit Your Agency’s Personnel Rules
This article was reviewed in June 2021 and is up-to-date.
Prevention of liability starts with auditing your agency’s personnel rules. Indeed, in an employment-related lawsuit, the applicable personnel rule is often “Exhibit A.” Each year, public agencies face changes to employment laws and regulations, best management practices, and internal changes to procedures. Thus, the outcome
Tips from the Table: Negotiating Personnel Rules
We are excited to continue our video series – Tips from the Table. In these monthly videos, members of LCW’s Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. We hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations.
Tips from the Table: Negotiating Modifications & Coalition Bargaining
We are excited to continue our video series – Tips from the Table. In these monthly videos, members of LCW’s Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. We hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations.
Prevention, Prevention, Prevention! It’s Time to Audit Your Agency’s Personnel Rules
Prevention of liability starts with auditing your agency’s personnel rules. Indeed, in an employment-related lawsuit, the applicable personnel rule is often “Exhibit A.” Each year, public agencies face changes to employment laws and regulations, best management practices, and internal changes to procedures. Thus, the outcome of a lawsuit may just depend on whether the agency
5 New Year’s Resolutions for Public Employers
With the beginning of each new year, we make resolutions that often involve improving ourselves: lose weight; eat healthier; get organized. The new year is also a good time for personnel and human resources directors, managers and analysts to resolve to make their agencies an even better place to work and to reduce risk. Here
Employer Had “Reasonable Cause” For Termination Based On Job Abandonment And Did Not Discriminate Based On Employee’s Previous Military Leave
It seems every employer has dealt with an employee who is chronically absent and fails to keep the employer informed of his or her absence. Employers wonder “is this job abandonment?” “When is enough, enough?” and “What if the employee is not on a protected leave now, but was previously? Does that look suspect if I terminate now?”
One U.S. Court of Appeal assuaged employer’s concerns when it held that an employer had “reasonable cause” to terminate an employee who violated the employer’s job abandonment policy. In so holding the Court found there was no evidence that the employer’s reason for terminating the employee was unlawfully motivated by the employee’s previous extended military leave.
In the case of To v. U.S. Bancorp, Jordan To (“To”) was an employee of U.S. Bancorp (“U.S. Bank”) when he received orders to attend training with the National Guard for 103 days. On the day To was due to return, August 4, 2008, To called-in sick and was told to provide a doctor’s note.
For the next three work days, To called each day and spoke to his supervisor indicating he was still sick. To later produced a doctor’s note indicating he could not return to work until August 11. To did not report to work on August 11, but called his supervisor and said he was ill. To’s doctor sent a note to U.S. Bank stating that To would be out until August 18. To did not show for work on August 18, 19, and 20 and did not call any supervisor. To claimed that his doctor was supposed to fax a note keeping him out for another week to U.S. Bank, but U.S. Bank denied ever receiving the note.
U.S. Bank had an employee manual which required employees to report every day of absence to his or her supervisor and that notifying HR or leaving messages were not sufficient. U.S. Bank also had a job abandonment policy that stated that any employee who remained absent for two consecutive work days without reporting the absence to the supervisor, absent extenuating circumstances, was assumed to have voluntarily abandoned their job. The manual was given to each employee and available on U.S. Bank’s intranet.
On August 20, U.S. Bank mailed a letter to To stating he was terminated for job abandonment. To called HR a few days later and stated his doctor was supposed to send a note to them for the week of August 15th. HR asked To to send them the note and it would “reevaluate his situation.” To failed to do so. To filed an action against U.S. Bank for, among other things, termination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank. To appealed and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed.