Practice Sets Policy

I recently audited a company, which shall remain nameless (because I am going to point out a few issues)--let us call it Practice Inc. In my initial interview with the company's lead HR professional, I felt that she was intelligent, informed, and working hard to make sure the company avoided legal liability. I left the meeting with the impression that I would be done with the audit in a few hours and have little to offer.

When I got home and started reviewing the company's policies, I found out they varied from the practices the HR professional (let's call her the HRP to help stave off Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) described to me. In the end, the audit report was about 42 pages long, and it took me nearly 60 hours to complete.

Using one example to illustrate my point, Practice Inc. had a policy that prohibited bringing firearms, ammunition, or concealed weapons of any kind onto the company property or premises. I noted this policy in my audit report because Georgia Law (the “Business Security and Employee Privacy Act”) states:

Section 7 (a) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer, including the state and its political subdivisions, shall establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of allowing such employer or its agents to search the locked privately owned vehicles of employees or invited guests on the employer´s parking lot and access thereto.

(b) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer, including the state and its political subdivisions, shall condition employment upon any agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from entering the parking lot and access thereto when the employee´s privately owned motor vehicle contains a firearm that is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within such privately owned motor vehicle, provided that any applicable employees possess a Georgia firearms license.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb89.htm

So, the law trumps the company policy with regard to allowing guns on the premises. No big deal. My recommendation was to limit the policy to the actual facility and not the parking lot. Discrepancy resolved.

The problem is, in a post-audit interview with another employee, he revealed that the CEO carried a gun at all times and frequently had it out in plain sight while in the building. Again, this is not necessarily a big deal, but the CEO has effectively voided the policy by carrying this gun.

In my initial interview with the HRP, she mentioned that the company had an employee make a strange statement that if he got fired he would shoot everyone. She mentioned that the statement was said in jest, but that she was concerned given the fact that this employee was a sniper in the military. Big deal. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic "big deal" kind of way. This is an actual big deal. I intend to cover pre-employment testing, workplace violence, and employer liability in another post, so here I will focus on the Practice vs. Policy question.

As Practice Inc. believed the comment was made in jest, it decided not to address the comment directly. The company's HR team had considered using the gun prohibition policy as a method of termination. They made the decision to monitor the employee, and if they found that he brought a weapon to work he would be subject to dismissal. After learning about the CEO's behavior, I informed the company that it had lost the option of terminating under that policy.

When I worked with a skilled nursing facility in Memphis, Tennessee, we were often forced to defend our employment decisions. We always prevailed because we followed the edicts of consistency, documentation, and fair treatment. With regard to consistency, we remained consistent with policy, and where we deviated from policy, we noted strong reasoning for doing so.

Once you begin deviating from policy, you have set a new policy and must abide by it. Deviation is to be avoided at all costs.

I had a manager at this skilled nursing facility (SNF) on whom we received a complaint about him using inappropriate language. He was a good guy, and his language was not intended to belittle anyone, however intent and impact are different, and impact means more. The problem was that his manager did not want to address his behavior because "that is just the way he is."

I explained that allowing him to behave in that manner, when we have disciplined and even terminated other employees for similar behavior, would subject us to scrutiny and potential liability. Given the rate at which our employment decisions were called into question, I refused to allow decisions that would create the appearance of discrimination. In the end, we followed policy and disciplined the manager for his inappropriate language.

Later, when we were questioned after firing an employee for a similar offense, we could show the documentation that the terminated employee had been warned and could show consistent treatment in line with our policy.

It is important to remember that policy is only valuable if it is followed. I can spend 60 hours reviewing your policy and making recommendations on how to improve it, but if you don't follow your policy, the time spent is valueless. Well, valueless to you...I still get paid.