 |
|
Oracle Tips by Burleson |
Willful
Disobedience (Insubordination)
Difficult IT employees who do not follow company,
departmental, or manager-level policies and directives
can lead to a power struggle with the manager and jeopardize the
attainment of defined goals. Willful disobedience
is defined as a situation where a direct order is given to an
employee, is understood by the employee, and the employee refuses to
obey the order intentionally by nonperformance or an explicit
statement.
Team morale will degrade if the insubordinate
employee is allowed to refuse directives. Some common cases of willful
disobedience for IT employees include failing to follow-through on
change management procedures and to change passwords on system
accounts after the exit of another employee from the company. Not only
are tasks such as these directives of management, but they are also
essential aspects of an effective and secure environment.
The initial step in addressing this issue should
be to discuss it with the individual. This discussion may reveal any
underlying reasons for the acts of disobedience. The computer
professional may have some disagreement with the manager, the company,
or another employee. A dispute with the company may relate to
compensation or work hours. Finding a root cause may lead to a
resolution of the standoff before disciplinary actions are necessary.
Even if there is an underlying reason for the
breach of policies or directives, the insubordinate individual may not
provide the true reason or any reason at all for their disobedience.
In those instances, the manager will not be able to assist the
employee in reconciling the behavior unless they use other alternative
methods for finding the root cause. The IT manager must listen to all
staff members on a regular basis since factors of insubordinate
behavior may be found in individuals other than the offending
employee.
Harassment - Case 2
There was a very complicated case of
Clarence Putnam v. Unity Health
System (2003). Putnam,
an African-American, after being terminated for insubordination, filed
a lawsuit against the employer for race and retaliation
discrimination, and racial harassment.
Putnam was a LAN analyst with Unity Health System
and his supervisor was Bob Heitzman. Heitzman had communicated to
Putnam that his job performance was below par and that he was not
“humble enough” and “too prideful.” Putnam asked for an explanation in
an email and his supervisor responded that his pride inhibits him from
admitting that he has made mistakes. Putnam then sent an email to the
Human Resources
representative claiming that his
supervisor was “riding him.”
Putnam subsequently filed a complaint with Human
Resources that Heitzman had been practicing racial discrimination
against him. HR responded that they did not find Heitzman’s
statements to be racially-based. On March 3, 2000, Putnam engaged in
an intense argument with a co-worker, calling him a “Neanderthal.”
Putnam was issued a Last Chance Agreement by Unity Health System
stating that termination of Putnam at this time was appropriate, but
that this was his last chance before that occurred. The agreement
further declared that there were to be no more incidents of disrespect
or insubordination by Putnam towards Heitzman, otherwise Putnam should
immediately resign his employment with Unity Health System or be
fired.
After Putnam returned from a leave of absence,
Heitzman asked him to carry an on-call pager for an extra week to make
up for the week he missed while on leave. He refused to comply with
this request and was immediately fired for insubordination. Putnam
filed another racial discrimination suit against his employer.
The district court granted summary judgment
dismissing all claims. Putnam did not provide evidence that he was
replaced as a LAN analyst, a requirement to prove unlawful
discrimination. The proof would have been based on evidence that
another similarly situated Caucasian employee, for example, was
treated in a more favored or different manner.
Unity Health System had the burden of proving that
they fired Putnam for a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason,
which they did. Putnam refused to comply with a direct order by his
supervisor in accordance with the Last Chance Agreement that stated he
would be fired for any more incidents of insubordination.
Insubordination and violation of company policies are legitimate
reasons. The employer also provided evidence that they had previously
fired a Caucasian employee for insubordination and also issued other
Last Chance Agreements to
non-minority employees.
The above book excerpt is from:
You're Fired!
Firing Computer Professionals
The IT
manager Guide for Terminating "With Cause"
ISBN 0-9744486-4-8
Robert Papaj
http://www.rampant-books.com/book_2005_1_firing.htm |
