just cause case
Step 4 : Management has followed progressive discipline
Manager
Marlboro
Yes- Employer is already gave written warning and suspension to prior violation. As adopted progressive discipline, the next step can be predicted even with the case that not harm company license. However, in this case one of two rules that employee are suspected in can cost company to lose license, reputation and money in case of fire or explosion happen. Obviously, the penalty for this one should be heavier than written notice and temporary suspended. Therefore, even with light penalty in this case still follow progressive discipline proportion to case degree.
Yes- Even though there is no similar case mentioned before, the face that Marlboro scared to lose her job means that company follows progressive discipline because he already got written warning and suspension, next probably be discharge. Besides this citation- smoking near combustible product is more severe than her prior violated actions because it can cost company business license. The conclusion could be draw that punishment should be more extensive.
Step 5 : Evidence is documented and credible
Manager
Marlboro
Yes- There is documented and credible evidence from officer. Even though Marlboro claimed that it was misunderstood situation, until she has new documented and credible evidence to prove her innocence, employer has every right to make decision based on this citation. Besides, even this case is proved to be misunderstood, still Marlboro did not follow Dishonesty rule by not bringing citation to employer.
No- Marlboro claimed that she was biting a straw not smoking cigarette and there is no evidence support her innocence. The only documented evidence is officer citation which is obviously not on her favor. Also she drives on the same route for 7 years. She knows where officer is. Why would she risk her career by smoking near tool booth?
Suggestion:
She should get contested on citation to prove her
Manager
Marlboro
Yes- Employer is already gave written warning and suspension to prior violation. As adopted progressive discipline, the next step can be predicted even with the case that not harm company license. However, in this case one of two rules that employee are suspected in can cost company to lose license, reputation and money in case of fire or explosion happen. Obviously, the penalty for this one should be heavier than written notice and temporary suspended. Therefore, even with light penalty in this case still follow progressive discipline proportion to case degree.
Yes- Even though there is no similar case mentioned before, the face that Marlboro scared to lose her job means that company follows progressive discipline because he already got written warning and suspension, next probably be discharge. Besides this citation- smoking near combustible product is more severe than her prior violated actions because it can cost company business license. The conclusion could be draw that punishment should be more extensive.
Step 5 : Evidence is documented and credible
Manager
Marlboro
Yes- There is documented and credible evidence from officer. Even though Marlboro claimed that it was misunderstood situation, until she has new documented and credible evidence to prove her innocence, employer has every right to make decision based on this citation. Besides, even this case is proved to be misunderstood, still Marlboro did not follow Dishonesty rule by not bringing citation to employer.
No- Marlboro claimed that she was biting a straw not smoking cigarette and there is no evidence support her innocence. The only documented evidence is officer citation which is obviously not on her favor. Also she drives on the same route for 7 years. She knows where officer is. Why would she risk her career by smoking near tool booth?
Suggestion:
She should get contested on citation to prove her