I wish to present these cases for your review and opinion.
Case 1: Emp CM - on probation, frequent absentee. Goes on leave due to illness, info telephonically conveyed to HR by the spouse. HR tries contacting CM and after much deliberation is able to speak to the 'CM'. On inquiry, the nature of ailment not conveyed, tentative return date also not informed. CM is informed that due to frequent absenteeism, emp might be terminated. To avoid a blotch in career, emp offers to resign but wants to be relieved immediately with notice period waived off, as emp cannot serve NP now due to illness but will do so after recovery, but return date cannot be predicted. on sympathetic grounds emp is relieved, NP waived, salary in lieu of NP also waived. After a few months, CM contacts HRD for relieving letter. HRD refuses since NP was not served by CM. CM places a veiled threat. In this situation: Should the company issue one, though NP not served? Should the company ask for a doctor's certificate showing the nature of ailment which disabled emp to serve NP?
Case 2: Emp PM - confirmed employee. tenders resignation. A few days later, while on NP goes on SL. HRD informs PM to report to work after recovery with a medical certificate and complete notice period. After 1.5 months, on not hearing from the employee, the company contacts PM asking the employee to report back to work with a medical certificate. The employee replies that the emp has relocated and cannot serve NP but wants a relieving letter. The HRD reverts saying that if PM cannot serve NP then PM has to pay salary in lieu. the employee is silent. HRD follows up with a reminder. PM reverts saying neither serving NP nor payment in lieu of NP is possible. But wants a relieving letter issued. What should the company do?
Case 3: Emp SG: Confirmed employee - Resigns on health grounds. The company offers to provide 3-6 months of leave on LOP, to recoup and revert. Reconsider the decision, on return if still want to resign, do so serve NP and move on. This way there would not be a break in the service record. HRD comes to understand that SG expects a 50% pay raise to set aside resignation. Incidentally, SG was given a 50% raise which was revised to 68% as requested by the emp just 3-4 months prior to this incident. HRD informed SG that the request would be reviewed, but needed time to execute it as the pay was increased only a few months earlier. After payday, SG abruptly abstained from work. On inquiry, the emp informs that it is not possible to report to work due to the severity of illness. and wants to get relieved immediately and initially expresses the wish to payoff NP. Later insists HRD issue relieving letter waiving NP, since emp's ailment is too severe to serve NP. HRD then requests for a medical certificate to show that SG is too ill to even serve an NP. SG reverts saying that the emp's family insisted that SG quits and takes rest due to emp's frail health which was not fit enough as per the family to serve NP. So the only option left is to pay in lieu of NP. HRD informs the emp accordingly. Now SG is silent. what should the company do?
From India, Chennai
1Case 1: Emp CM - on probation, frequent absentee. Goes on leave due to illness, info telephonically conveyed to HR by the spouse. HR tries contacting CM and after much deliberation is able to speak to the 'CM'. On inquiry, the nature of ailment not conveyed, tentative return date also not informed. CM is informed that due to frequent absenteeism, emp might be terminated. To avoid a blotch in career, emp offers to resign but wants to be relieved immediately with notice period waived off, as emp cannot serve NP now due to illness but will do so after recovery, but return date cannot be predicted. on sympathetic grounds emp is relieved, NP waived, salary in lieu of NP also waived. After a few months, CM contacts HRD for relieving letter. HRD refuses since NP was not served by CM. CM places a veiled threat. In this situation: Should the company issue one, though NP not served? Should the company ask for a doctor's certificate showing the nature of ailment which disabled emp to serve NP?
Case 2: Emp PM - confirmed employee. tenders resignation. A few days later, while on NP goes on SL. HRD informs PM to report to work after recovery with a medical certificate and complete notice period. After 1.5 months, on not hearing from the employee, the company contacts PM asking the employee to report back to work with a medical certificate. The employee replies that the emp has relocated and cannot serve NP but wants a relieving letter. The HRD reverts saying that if PM cannot serve NP then PM has to pay salary in lieu. the employee is silent. HRD follows up with a reminder. PM reverts saying neither serving NP nor payment in lieu of NP is possible. But wants a relieving letter issued. What should the company do?
Case 3: Emp SG: Confirmed employee - Resigns on health grounds. The company offers to provide 3-6 months of leave on LOP, to recoup and revert. Reconsider the decision, on return if still want to resign, do so serve NP and move on. This way there would not be a break in the service record. HRD comes to understand that SG expects a 50% pay raise to set aside resignation. Incidentally, SG was given a 50% raise which was revised to 68% as requested by the emp just 3-4 months prior to this incident. HRD informed SG that the request would be reviewed, but needed time to execute it as the pay was increased only a few months earlier. After payday, SG abruptly abstained from work. On inquiry, the emp informs that it is not possible to report to work due to the severity of illness. and wants to get relieved immediately and initially expresses the wish to payoff NP. Later insists HRD issue relieving letter waiving NP, since emp's ailment is too severe to serve NP. HRD then requests for a medical certificate to show that SG is too ill to even serve an NP. SG reverts saying that the emp's family insisted that SG quits and takes rest due to emp's frail health which was not fit enough as per the family to serve NP. So the only option left is to pay in lieu of NP. HRD informs the emp accordingly. Now SG is silent. what should the company do?
From India, Chennai
Real-time insights = better workforce planning. Make smarter decisions today! Explore & Request A Demo
Dear Jayaa Shankar,
The replies to the case study are as below:
Case 1:
For a probationer and too a person who is a frequent absentee, one who plays tricks; why HR was so sympathetic is not understood. Secondly, the case study is a little contradictory with the general employment conditions. Generally, there is no notice period for probationers. Till the employee is confirmed, the employee can quit employment with a day's notice or the employer can terminate the employment with just a day's notice. Secondly, if the HR showed a sympathetic view, then why did HR do half the job? What is the logic of accepting the resignation, waiving the notice period but withholding the relieving letter?
Case 2:
HR can order a domestic enquiry for the abandonment of employment. If misconduct during the enquiry is established, then management (not HR) may terminate the employment of the employee. HR may issue the relieving certificate with remarks as "Services Terminated because of Abandonment of Employment". When the due process of law is followed, the employee cannot object to the issuance of such a certificate.
Case 3:
For the abandonment of employment, a domestic enquiry should be ordered. The employee can depose before the enquiry and explain his position. Depending on the tenability of the grounds provided for the absence from duties, management may take action accordingly. By the way, if the ailment of the employee was too severe, then why did some HR personnel not visit the hospital? Why did nobody visit the employee's home? Personal visits always help to assess the ground situation.
Final comments:
In all three situations, overall HR appears to be weak and not acquainted with the procedure of handling discipline. We do not know whether all three situations happened in the same company or in different companies. Either way, by reading the case studies, it appears that the culture of the company is such that employees dictate the terms. While running administration, management must have a whip hand. Those who break the framework of discipline must be dealt with sternly. It sends a message to one and all. With this unwanted pliability or accommodativeness, companies can never grow. Such types of HRs doom their company, their personal career, and bring a bad reputation to HR as a whole!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
The replies to the case study are as below:
Case 1:
For a probationer and too a person who is a frequent absentee, one who plays tricks; why HR was so sympathetic is not understood. Secondly, the case study is a little contradictory with the general employment conditions. Generally, there is no notice period for probationers. Till the employee is confirmed, the employee can quit employment with a day's notice or the employer can terminate the employment with just a day's notice. Secondly, if the HR showed a sympathetic view, then why did HR do half the job? What is the logic of accepting the resignation, waiving the notice period but withholding the relieving letter?
Case 2:
HR can order a domestic enquiry for the abandonment of employment. If misconduct during the enquiry is established, then management (not HR) may terminate the employment of the employee. HR may issue the relieving certificate with remarks as "Services Terminated because of Abandonment of Employment". When the due process of law is followed, the employee cannot object to the issuance of such a certificate.
Case 3:
For the abandonment of employment, a domestic enquiry should be ordered. The employee can depose before the enquiry and explain his position. Depending on the tenability of the grounds provided for the absence from duties, management may take action accordingly. By the way, if the ailment of the employee was too severe, then why did some HR personnel not visit the hospital? Why did nobody visit the employee's home? Personal visits always help to assess the ground situation.
Final comments:
In all three situations, overall HR appears to be weak and not acquainted with the procedure of handling discipline. We do not know whether all three situations happened in the same company or in different companies. Either way, by reading the case studies, it appears that the culture of the company is such that employees dictate the terms. While running administration, management must have a whip hand. Those who break the framework of discipline must be dealt with sternly. It sends a message to one and all. With this unwanted pliability or accommodativeness, companies can never grow. Such types of HRs doom their company, their personal career, and bring a bad reputation to HR as a whole!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Thank you, Mr. Dinesh. I fully accept your comments except in case number 1.
Nowadays, most of the appointment letters have a notice period mentioned, typically for a minimum of one month, 15 days, or 7 days during the probation period. Based on this clause, HR may terminate the employee upon the completion of the mentioned notice period, as per the terms of the appointment, depending on the factual findings or genuineness of the case.
From India, Hyderabad
Nowadays, most of the appointment letters have a notice period mentioned, typically for a minimum of one month, 15 days, or 7 days during the probation period. Based on this clause, HR may terminate the employee upon the completion of the mentioned notice period, as per the terms of the appointment, depending on the factual findings or genuineness of the case.
From India, Hyderabad
Thank you, Mr. Dinesh.
On reviewing your comments:
1. HRDs have some constraints in startups and private concerns.
2. Only documents speak. In the case where a report is produced by an employee, even if the HRD knows it is untrue, they still may not be able to take much action.
3. Most companies recruit in good faith and pay salaries correctly. However, attrition still appears to be a challenge.
JS
From India, Chennai
On reviewing your comments:
1. HRDs have some constraints in startups and private concerns.
2. Only documents speak. In the case where a report is produced by an employee, even if the HRD knows it is untrue, they still may not be able to take much action.
3. Most companies recruit in good faith and pay salaries correctly. However, attrition still appears to be a challenge.
JS
From India, Chennai
Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Case studies on R & S.doc