youareceo
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Michigan
I am a former manager at a workplace and keep in contact with some of my peers. It came to my attention that a female employee, who is over 50 and having a serious health condition, had FMLA filed and approved on for an intermittent condition. She is full time and worked for over the year and hours.
I hate to steer the conversation, but please don't question the reasoning behind the FMLA and it's approval - it's set in stone which means we don't need to dissect it nor why she needs it. She IS able to perform her job duties when not experiencing an issue, cannot work when she does experience one, and she is safe at work until experiencing the issue.
The environment is automotive dealership, which means some of the traditional HR procedures are similar to automotive union, like where the First Aid Kit is, *vacation time paid lump sum annually, etc. This particular company is so paranoid of unemployment they hired a consultant who trained managers. Maybe they had an EEOC, wrongful termination or OSHA enforcement about it, who knows...But I genuinely think, based how I wanted terminate troublemakers at will, that they are intentionally avoiding legitimate unemployment. This is their call center. Saturdays are on a two person a shift rotating basis with comp days built in.
Before I transitioned to a new company, a few things were true:
1. She had an increasing attendance problem. (Cause)
2. Making up hours was directed by upper management as only when there was a business need, unless they used approved time off with no distinction between paid and unpaid.* (Enforcement)
3. She was one of the employees the new manager, who I trained, was looking at dumping for attendance. (Malice)
4. The handbook says nothing about an attendance policy, except that you need to be at work and your manager is the judge of it. Their consultant told them to create a universal policy over a year ago. (Policy)
5. There is an attendance problem with non approved (therefore non FMLA protected as well) leave and time compliance in the call center. (Situation)
They changed the rules to no making up hours when absent. They did not clarify whether this is on approved time off or unplanned, which is a red flag but I'm sure not illegal. It's true they need a stronger policy manual or they are eventually going to get sued and lose. But I digress!
The employee in question filed FMLA last Tuesday (over a week ago). She again experienced an episode on Friday last week (she is off Saturdays by rotation), then off Monday and Tuesday. So she got a Dr's note. On Tuesday morning, while absent, FMLA was approved by the CFO and HR. No adverse employee action about this absence.
On Thursday, she was told with the entire group there was no make up time, as stated above. Employee asked in person if she had FMLA, if she could make up time, manager said would take into consideration but might be able to work something out. I don't think that will happen because...
Today, I found out they had a call off. The person called in (whether by offer or by request) was someone who already has 40 hours this week. She is earning overtime while the FMLA protected employee, who offered yesterday to come in if they were short, sits at home. She offered in advance because the two in today are the worst absentee unplanned offenders.
Obviously, that was a really DUMB business decision (to pay OT rather than stay on budget for labor). And it's certainly unfair, which a lot of favoritism at all levels happens here. But is it illegal? I think if she was not FMLA protected it would be. But, I ask with the FMLA protection, is this discrimination of wages on someone who has FMLA?
I hate to steer the conversation, but please don't question the reasoning behind the FMLA and it's approval - it's set in stone which means we don't need to dissect it nor why she needs it. She IS able to perform her job duties when not experiencing an issue, cannot work when she does experience one, and she is safe at work until experiencing the issue.
The environment is automotive dealership, which means some of the traditional HR procedures are similar to automotive union, like where the First Aid Kit is, *vacation time paid lump sum annually, etc. This particular company is so paranoid of unemployment they hired a consultant who trained managers. Maybe they had an EEOC, wrongful termination or OSHA enforcement about it, who knows...But I genuinely think, based how I wanted terminate troublemakers at will, that they are intentionally avoiding legitimate unemployment. This is their call center. Saturdays are on a two person a shift rotating basis with comp days built in.
Before I transitioned to a new company, a few things were true:
1. She had an increasing attendance problem. (Cause)
2. Making up hours was directed by upper management as only when there was a business need, unless they used approved time off with no distinction between paid and unpaid.* (Enforcement)
3. She was one of the employees the new manager, who I trained, was looking at dumping for attendance. (Malice)
4. The handbook says nothing about an attendance policy, except that you need to be at work and your manager is the judge of it. Their consultant told them to create a universal policy over a year ago. (Policy)
5. There is an attendance problem with non approved (therefore non FMLA protected as well) leave and time compliance in the call center. (Situation)
They changed the rules to no making up hours when absent. They did not clarify whether this is on approved time off or unplanned, which is a red flag but I'm sure not illegal. It's true they need a stronger policy manual or they are eventually going to get sued and lose. But I digress!
The employee in question filed FMLA last Tuesday (over a week ago). She again experienced an episode on Friday last week (she is off Saturdays by rotation), then off Monday and Tuesday. So she got a Dr's note. On Tuesday morning, while absent, FMLA was approved by the CFO and HR. No adverse employee action about this absence.
On Thursday, she was told with the entire group there was no make up time, as stated above. Employee asked in person if she had FMLA, if she could make up time, manager said would take into consideration but might be able to work something out. I don't think that will happen because...
Today, I found out they had a call off. The person called in (whether by offer or by request) was someone who already has 40 hours this week. She is earning overtime while the FMLA protected employee, who offered yesterday to come in if they were short, sits at home. She offered in advance because the two in today are the worst absentee unplanned offenders.
Obviously, that was a really DUMB business decision (to pay OT rather than stay on budget for labor). And it's certainly unfair, which a lot of favoritism at all levels happens here. But is it illegal? I think if she was not FMLA protected it would be. But, I ask with the FMLA protection, is this discrimination of wages on someone who has FMLA?
