“You Can’t Fire Me! Check Your Policy Analysis”

According to the managers, Hattie’s work at the company was exceptional prior to her absenteeism cases, which shows the company was happy with her services. Additionally, they described her as a devoted person who was incapable of engaging in unethical behaviors like stealing from the business or disobeying her superiors since she realized doing so would jeopardize the advancement of the institution. The aforementioned compliments from her bosses significantly aided Hattie’s background investigation to determine whether she would be hired by the company in the future. The bosses are therefore reminded of Hattie’s exceptional achievement by her prior work history. The factor would prevent the managers from terminating her since they were conversant with her exceptional duties as an employee of the company. Besides, her background work record would convince the superiors that she was satisfied with her role in the organization. In view of this, her absenteeism cases would have been acknowledged as crucial to her family and herself.

Although managers are essential in overlooking the activities of an organization, they have no right of knowing their employee’s reason’s for failing to work overtime. Employees are entitled to their privacy, and they have a right to refrain from working overtime when dealing with personal problems with their family, spouses, and friends. Alternatively, if the employee completes her regular working hours he/she has the freedom of refusing to comply with the superiors request to work overtime without providing detailed information. In this case, the reasons may be too personal, and the employee may feel that telling the management would be an invasion of privacy. With this in mind, even though the superiors have the jurisdiction of firing the employees who refuse to work overtime, they should avoid questioning them for detailed information as it would undermine their privacy.

According to an explication of Hattie Mae’s arguments, it is clear the management terminated her employment illegitimately. One of the reasons that make her employment termination illicit is the failure of her work record analysis by the administration to generate a better decision instead of firing her. It is evident from the facts of the case that Hattie’s attendance had been flawless and this earned her the title of the model employee as well as enhanced her performance reviews from her superiors. On the other hand, Hattie was branded as a dedicated employee by her management, and when she began portraying work attendance issues, she always had genuine and verifiable reasons. Consequently, the administration, failed to offer satisfactory reasons for Hattie’s termination citing that she was aware of her absentee problem and serving her a warning would not change anything. The arguments provided by the management are biased because it was not their place to Judge Hattie’s decision and they ignored the Company’s disciplinary policy.

It is apparent that Hattie’s termination was against protocol because the management failed to serve her with a warning which would have established her poor behavior in her job. Giving her the notice would have been fair because of her previously proven loyalty and dedication to the company by being an employee of Beach Electrical systems for nine years. Also, another factor that motivates the improper termination verdict is that for six years Hattie was a model employee of the company and her absenteeism was always genuine. Furthermore, upon her termination, Hattie’s superiors denied her any official notice which was against the work ethic. Therefore, based on insights from the case, a better decision for the management would have been to serve Hattie with a warning or notice of termination and place her on probation to monitor whether her behavior would change for the better.