In a healthcare environment, it is required for employees to punch out of the system when they leave their workplace. Some personal reasons for leaving can be combined with the work-related tasks like in the case with the employee who asked George Mann, his supervisor, to have 1-2 hours. However, he was noticed by Sally Carter, the payroll and HR department supervisor. This paper examines the points of view of both supervisors and a potential solution of Jane Arnold, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the hospital.
George Mann’s Position
When the employee was seen at the bank during his working hours, Sally Carter considered it to be a violation of rules and reported to the CEO. In turn, the employee’s supervisor claimed that all the rules were followed since the employee preliminarily asked for 1-2 hours for his personal affairs. More to the point, he was given the task of purchasing some details for the maintenance department that is managed by Mann.
From the positon of this supervisor, it is possible to claim that the employee should be paid for these two hours as the permission to leave the hospital settings was given to him. In other words, it was this supervisor who made the employee think that he will be paid. George Mann can argue that the employee was not expected to punch out since he was asked to perform organizational responsibilities as well. At the same time, assigning him the task of buying lawn-mower details saved time that the supervisor could use for other important issues without personally visiting the dealership center.
Sally Carter’s Position
Sally Carter noticed the employee at the bank and discovered that he did not punch out of the system when she came back to the hospital. The main basis of the argument that can be stated by the supervisor of payroll and HR is that the hospital’s policy requires all the employees to punch out when they leave. This long-standing policy explains that any personal business is the reason for following the hospital’s regulations, and that George Mann did not have the authority to allow his employee to leave the facility without logging out.
Therefore, the employee should not be paid for these two hours since he was actually gone from the organization. Most importantly, it should be argued that the most of the time was spent on individual business instead of work-related tasks. From the position of Sally Carter, it is evident that the organization’s policy was violated by both the employee and his supervisor, who sanctioned such actions. The arguments of Carter also seem to be relevant and based on the policy that is accepted in this particular hospital.
Potential Decision of Jane Arnold
Considering the situation from the point of the CEO, it is critical to listen to both sides, paying attention to their arguments. The positions of both Carter and Mann should be clarified during the group meeting to find a solution that would be mutually satisfactory to this problem. On the one hand, the dispute can be resolved in favor of a person, who would better present and defend his or her arguments. On the other hand, the CEO can revisit the policies and decide to strictly follow them. Another potential outcome is associated with the personal relationships of Arnold with either Carter or Mann. In addition, the CEO may consider the occurred problems in a larger context, trying to link this situation with the overall rules in the organization.
First of all, Arnold should reread the long-standing policy and make sure that it prescribes the statements that are cited by Carter. Second, the CEO should conduct face-to-face meetings with both parties to choose the most suitable decision. From the point of Arnold, one should decide that the employee should be paid for two hours he was gone for both personal and organizational business.
While the policy does not include such a particular case, it is evident that the employee’s actions benefited the hospital. Therefore, he should not be deprived of payment, which is also based on the permission of his supervisor. Moreover, the trip of the employee cannot be regarded as a personal visit only since it also involved buying details for the hospital. Nevertheless, it is also apparent that the existing policy lacks clarity, and it should be adjusted to avoid similar problems in the future.
Changes to Minimize Similar Conflicts
The elaboration of the arguments from the positions of Carter and Mann allows for formulating new policies to prevent such cases. The foundation for all the clarifications regarding the policy of leaving the hospital premises should be based on the requirement of punching out for any reason except for organizational affairs. In case when an employee leaves for a mixed purpose, it should be outlined in advance and agreed with an HR or payroll manager.
Namely, the latter can be contacted by the supervisor and notified of the fact that a particular employee leaves the hospital for performing work-related and personal business. This policy would prevent the possible controversy with the HR department that is also responsible for payroll in this hospital context. Most importantly, the documentation for the leave for the combination of organizational and personal affairs should be completed. It can be noted that the employee’s personal business site is located near the store that he or she is asked to visit, which can be done in a memo format.
It should also be stressed that there is a lack of training in this hospital since Mann decided the employee to leave the hospital without punching out. One can recommend organizing refresher courses to remind supervisors and staff of the policies. At the same time, all the employees have the right to personal life, and Carter was not eligible to ask the employee about the reasons for being at the bank. The HR department should be recapped of the need to consider propriety and be more sensitive when conflicts appear with employees. Also, despite the proposed changes in the policy, punitive measures should also be implemented for unauthorized absence and tardiness. This would ensure that misbehavior would not be tolerated by the hospital, which should be clear to employees.
To conclude, this paper considers the case study from the perspectives of two supervisors regarding the absence of the employee without punching out. While Mann insists on the appropriateness of such actions since organizational and personal issues were mixed, Carter argues that they violate the policy that is accepted in this hospital. The changes in the current policy are proposed to make sure that similar conflicts would be avoided in the future, and the decision of the CEO is to pay to this employee for two hours as he bought lawn-mower details during this period of time.