A Best Buy store employee with a history of attendance problems was recently terminated for a violation of Best Buy’s newly updated Attendance and Punctuality Policy. Feeling his termination was unfair, the employee requested that a Peer Review panel consider his case. The Peer Review summary is as follows:
The employee in question was terminated in August for reporting late to work after having received several written warnings for tardiness. Though admitting to a prior history of tardiness, the employee noted that:
• The store General Manager stated that everyone’s attendance record had been “wiped clean” when Best Buy’s new Attendance Policy took effect on March 1;
• The terminated employee had only been late twice since the new Attendance Policy took effect on March 1;
• More than a month passed from the date the employee reported late to work to the date he was terminated, and;
• Other members of the store team had been allowed to report late for their shifts without consequence.
In support of the termination action, the store General Manager was able to produce several Performance Counseling Records (PCRs) documenting the employee’s issues with tardiness prior to March 1. However, when asked about her store’s method of monitoring attendance, the General Manager admitted to using a different tool than what is recommended by Best Buy. She also admitted to stating that employees’ attendance histories would start over on March 1.
When interviewed, the store’s Assistant Managers could not validate that the Attendance Policy was applied consistently to all employees in their store. Likewise, the store’s District HR Manager stated that attendance accountability should not have started over on March 1 under the revised policy. Rather, managers were simply asked to begin using the new monitoring tool at that time.
Upon considering the facts of the case, the Peer Review panel overturned the termination decision and reinstated the employee for the following reasons:
1. The GM confirmed she had stated that attendance violations prior to March 1 would not count against employees in the future.
2. Attendance records showed that the terminated employee had only two attendance violations after March 1, an insufficient infraction by itself to warrant termination.
3. The store’s management team could not speak to the consistency of how the policy was applied at their location.
The General Manager told her employees that prior attendance violations would not be held against them going forward. Was it OK for the GM to “modify” the Attendance Policy for her location in this way? Why or why not?
Which was more serious in your opinion, and why? A GM not using the attendance monitoring tool provided by the company, or the fact that leadership could not demonstrate the Attendance Policy was applied consistently?
The decision to terminate came a full month after the employee’s infraction. Did this delay influence your point of view in any way? If so, how?
Attendance policies are very difficult to enforce, given the bulk of infractions you tend to see on a daily basis. It is a time consuming endeavor to go through each incident, document them, and counsel the employee. Nevertheless as a manager if you want to enforce attendance it is imperative that it be consistent and speedy or the policy itself it rendered irrelevant. Any sort of disciplinary action should be carried out as close to the time of the incident as possible. To do otherwise implies either 1) The manager is unethically using the issue as an excuse to terminate. or 2) The manager is unethically waiting for a convenient time to terminate. Or 3) The manager is trying to cover up not following through on a policy by playing catch up.
He has to be consistent, and he has to stand by his word. A month should have been way too long to terminate.
He must have wanted to “performance manage” this employee, or it would have never gotten that far.