For those with knowledge or experience:
If an investigation finds that an employee violated a rule, even without intent or malice etc. — is it up to the LOB management whether to keep them or not?
I understand an outcome “recommendation” is given by HR, but how much discretion is given to the LOB/team? Can they choose to ignore that recommendation?
Bravo!
Need to know?
@bk Same thing happened to to my colleague. If the allegedly sensitive info was truly sensitive (it wasn't but just for argument's sake), then the info should've been restricted versus accessible to all employees. But instead of punishing those who failed to restrict the "sensitive" info, HR apparently forced managers to ding anyone who stumbled across it. If either of you gets terminated for cause for something like this alone, hopefully you'd have a good chance for a decent settlement (like @e0 got).
Your leader and HR make the decision. And they don't care if it was with malice or not. I found an issue turned it in and got terminated. THey all admitted it was their fault but they fired me because I had been their a long time and did not want to give me severance.
I was high performing, long term great reviews etc but it did not matter I found an issue in an HR system and HR wanted me to go and I did.
Luckily I make enough money that employment attorneys were willing to take the case. In the end it cost them way more than had they laid me off. Do not trust, document EVERYTHING and go talk to an attorney.
HR is not your friend. Your manager is not your friend. I found an issue that had been a fubar before and the team asked ME to help fix it and I was gone. The best part was that the Ahole who made the decision had to sign off on my settlement.
I was recently “caught” and investigated. It was a cybersecurity related issue and their recommendation trumped ALL pushback and questioning from my +1, 2 and 3.
I looked at information I had full access to without any kind of elevated privileges (technically EVERY employee has access to the thing I looked at), was not labeled as restricted nor was it in any kind of location that would imply restrictions. Reviewing the information was not specifically part of my standard job requirements but it was related to research I was doing as part of my position. After reviewing the information I determined it was not relevant to my research and forgot about it. 30 days later the investigation started.
It is what it is. I’m told it only affected this years review but I’m hoping it leads to being terminated for cause. Mandatory vacation would be nice, I’m too lazy to quit and I know I won’t be getting severanced any time soon.
Exactly that. They escalate until they get the answer they 'recommend'.
What if it was something around anti-discrimination and anti-harassment? Does that always end in termination regardless of management team input?
It can depend on the infraction. I saw an employee everyone loved get fired due to the lying on the application. Found out quite a bit after they were hired. Not Wells but another fin Svc firm
@a8 and the inverse is true as well. If a manager wants to "punish" the employee but HR says otherwise, HR trumps
The manager can't ignore HR's recommendation. If the manager wants to be lenient but HR recommends otherwise, HR will pressure the manager into doing whatever HR thinks is best. HR will tell the manager leniency would require approval from the manager's 2-up or higher, essentially backing the manager into a corner. Throughout the process, HR will repeat the mantra that HR makes no decisions -- that it's all up to LOB management. Similar to how some say performance rating curves / calibrations aren't forced even though they are. In both situations, the manager must decide whether standing up for an employee is worth jeopardizing the manager's own job.