March 7th, 2013
My findings for the case study conducted on behalf of Carl Robins, a former
employee of ABC Inc.; include inadequate training, dereliction of duties of those higher
in company chain, unmanaged and unsupervised staff, and failure to implement written
policy, procedures, or checklist of duties and responsibilities. I ultimately find Mr.
Robins at no fault; and wrongfully terminated at the hands of ABC Inc.
On July 15, 2013, my office was contacted by Mr. Carl Robins; an employee of
ABC Inc. Mr. Robins believes that he was wrongfully terminated and wants his job back.
I took on the case and immediately set up separate interviews with Mr. Robins, his
previous supervisor, Monica Carrols, and several key employees employed at ABC Inc.
During my interview with Mr. Robins, he explained to me that he was a new hire with
ABC Inc., and had only been working for the company for 6-months. Mr. Robins was
hired on as the company’s recruiter for new staff. Mr. Robins was only trained on his
responsibility to recruit eligible personnel to hire for ABC Inc.
Mr. Robins believes that Monica and other staff members who have been with ABC
Inc. for several years were actually the individuals who were responsible for essential key
duties like maintaining and completing actions related to new hire files like, drug
screening, orientation and application paperwork. Mr. Robins explained that although he
recruits all new hires and has access to their folders, he was never trained or instructed to
complete any administrative actions concerning new hire files. Mr. Robins says his job
was simply to recruit new hires and schedule them for orientation before they could start
work. Mr. Robins says that over the past six months of watching the process from start to
finish that he knew enough to know that all new hires applications and drug screens and
orientation had to be completed before they could start work.
Mr. Robins explained that Janet Leaverman is the individual assigned to personnel
in the company and that she had been off work on vacation From May 1st – May 15th but
returned to work May 16th. Mr. Robins said he was contacted by his immediate
supervisor on May 15th and asked to look into where the new hires were in the process as
far as their administrative paperwork was concerned. He located the files, and
determined that most of them were not complete and time was running out. He identified
the missing actions, typed up a memo to Janet and emailed it to her letting her know what
was missing from the new hire files and what still needed to be completed before his new
hires could attend orientation.
Mr. Robins said that when Janet returned to work the following day that she
responded to his email by thank you for identifying items/actions that were not yet
completed and that she would take things from there and for him not to worry that she
would ensure that all actions for the new hires was completed prior to the start of
Mr. Robins explained how Janet was only back to work for a week and then he
noticed that she had requested emergency leave and was gone again. Mr. Robins said
that he never went back to the new hire files to ensure all steps were complete because he
had already identified to Janet any issues and that she had a full week to complete any
necessary actions and that if things were not completed, he felt that Janet was the
employee responsible for making someone aware of what still needed to be accomplished
in her absence and that no one asked him for help.
Mr. Robins added that not only were the files an issue but when he went to double
check his scheduled orientation for his new hires, he identified that the scheduler had