Termination process

at
Categories
Tags

 

RESPOND about the strategy they selected to implement for smoother termination.

Key steps that I found to be most helpful in making the termination process go smoothly were ensuring all supporting documentation is in order, immediately cutting off company property access, and considering a severance agreement.

It is crucial that the employer has supporting documentation on file that justifies termination of the employee. This includes performance reviews and any dated record of corrective action taken. These documents should prove the decision was not subjective or involving any personal feelings from either party. As an HRM professional, I would suggest requiring all leaders and managers to take annual training sessions on employee evaluation and coaching, conflict resolution, and steps to take in corrective action. HR should also ensure the organization has a written policy and procedure on the steps of corrective action such as oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and then termination. Documenting each action taken with reason will also prove the termination is valid and defensible.

Cutting of an employee’s access to company property upon termination is important for the organization and the employee. This protects the company from any potential danger if the former employee seeks out revenge. This also protects the company from any security breach of secured data. A vengeful ex-employee may be inclined to steal important data, so it is best to collect all access cards, keys, and company devices prior to or at termination. My current employer requires us to sign a document acknowledging all the company property (door access cards, computer, take-home laptop, additional take-home monitor, company-issued apparel) that we received when initially hired. Attached to this document is an “exit sheet” that we have to acknowledge once we leave the company for any reason stating we’ve returned all company property and violating this agreement could potentially result in legal action. Once signing this, the former employee is escorted to their vehicle by security personnel.

Lastly, I believe an employer should consider a severance agreement when necessary. This is not always the case for terminations, so it should be on a case-by-case basis. HR should collaborate with the legal representatives of the organization to ensure the severance agreement doesn’t admit to any unfair practices of termination and that the exiting employee will not file a wrongful termination lawsuit against the employer. I’ve experienced this first-hand in college. I worked part-time at a well-known retail department store and was there for over 6 months. The store manager openly communicated to us that our location was scheduled to be closed within a year, so most part-time workers were expecting to be let go. I was called to HR during a shift and advised I would be terminated due to “downsizing by least seniority.” I was very surprised when I was offered a 2 months’ severance package that averaged my normal pay. Although I was part-time, I made decent income. I didn’t hesitate to agree to the severance package and agreed to refrain from filing a lawsuit. I even worked at a different location for this same store chain in another city because of how well they handled that situation. Offering severance pay isn’t always the answer for an employer, but they should consider it, especially if they don’t have documentation disproving wrongful termination.

 

Sample Solution

case and thus the dimension and nature of how intervention is applied must be viewed through this perspective of situational difference.

Arguably the most prominent case in which Responsibility to Protect can be seen to have been enacted upon in the 21st-century is that of the 2011 Libyan civil conflict. Over the period February 2011-12, 21,490 Libyans were killed at a rate of 5.1 per 1000 people per year, a further 19,700 were injured and 435,000 were displaced. (Daw, Dau and El-Buzedi 2015, pp101-107) The extent to which this can be considered a mass atrocity can be measured by the UN’s response. This UN response came rapidly on the 26th of February 2011, just three days after the conflict began, as the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1970. The resolution expressed a “grave concern for the situation in Libya,” at the “gross and systematic violation of human rights,” crucially it is also explicit in calling upon the Libyan authorities for their “responsibility to protect its population,” and the need to “respect the freedoms of peaceful assembly.” (UN, n.d) Resolution 1970 also imposed sanctions upon the Libyan state such as the freezing of economic resources on Libyan territory. This action was reinforced by the UN adoption of resolution 1973 on March 17th 2011, which “reiterated responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population,” and that all armed parties within the conflict “take all feasible steps to protect civilians,” yet again reaffirming language of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. In addition resolution 1973 called for an immediate ceasefire and a no-fly zone over Libya. Two days after this resolution a NATO-led coalition force began bombing governmental forces which resulted in a military victory for the NATO coalition. The extent to which this is seen as an appropriate use of R2P however is debated. A realist concept that whilst a primary objective of the mandate in Libya was ‘civilian protection’, this changed over the course of the conflict towards regime change, a goal which is unlikely to have had the uncontested support of the Security Council. (Abomo 2018, p244) The opposition to this is put forward by Amstutz, who argues that the principal goal of the intervention was to “prevent the slaughter of civilians” in support of the R2P doctrine, as a result of this aim and the military intervention to achieve it, “the downfall of a lunatic,” was necessary.(Amstutz 2018, p161) This is an argument I would tend to concur with as, in my view, the Libyan government failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens, and whilst regime change came as a result of necessary humanitarian intervention, the principal goal was the protection of human rights. A further argument which is made against the intervention in Libya is one which is also levelled against the concept of the R2P doctrine itself, whether it indeed unacceptably breaches a level of sovereignty. In a polemic article regarding Libyan intervention, Keeler argues “it seemed clear that fo

This question has been answered.

Get Answer