HR Morning News, Page 28 Category

Can a company function without bosses?  

As you’ve no doubt heard, online shoe retailer Zappos — or at least Zappos’ CEO Tony Hsieh — thinks so. The company’s been dabbling in a structure called Holacracy (more on that in a second) that encourages personal creativity. But to this point, it’s still had a traditional management setup.

As of April 30, that all changes. Hsieh recently sent out a memo decreeing that as of April 30, there will be no more managers at Zappos. And everybody who disagrees with the move can quit and get a fairly nice severance package.

Here’s a definition of Holacracy, straight off the website:

Holacracy is a distributed authority system – a set of  rules that bake empowerment into the core of the organization. Unlike conventional top-down or progressive bottom-up approaches, it integrates the benefits of both without relying on parental heroic leaders. Everyone becomes a leader of their roles and a follower of others’, processing tensions with real authority and real responsibility, through dynamic governance and transparent operations.

Sounds good to us.

But Hsieh is unhappy with the melding of this New Age approach and the old-fogey management structure. In his memo to employees, Hsieh said, “Having one foot in one world while having the other foot in the other world has slowed down our transformation towards self-management and self-organization.”

So as of April 30, the old management structure will be no more.

A shift in hue

Another bit of explanation is needed here. Richard Feloni, writing on Business Insider, explains Zappos’ current system:

In the new Zappos lexicon, the company has been a “Green” organization, one that encourages employee freedom but functions with a traditional hierarchy. Hsieh wants to transition it to a “Teal” organization that doesn’t need managers to grow and fix internal problems.

How’s that going to work? In his memo, Hsieh says:

After many conversations and a lot of feedback about where we are today versus our desired state of self-organization, self-management, increased autonomy, and increased efficiency, we are going to take a “rip the bandaid” approach to accelerate progress towards becoming a Teal organization. …

Our main objective is not just to do Holacracy well, but to make Zappos a fully self-organized, self-managed organization by combining a variety of different tools and processes.

Not a fit for everybody

Hsieh acknowledged that the new regime wouldn’t be a great fit for everybody, so he’s offering nonbelievers a severance package. On a company-wide scale, each employee will be offered at least 3 months severance (and up to 3 months of COBRA reimbursement for benefits) if he/she feels that self-management, self-organization, and (other company programs) are not the right fit. (For employees that have been with Zappos for 4 or more years, the offer will be 1 month for every year worked at Zappos, along with up to 3 months of COBRA reimbursement for benefits.)

There are some conditions, however. Each departing employee (who want the package) must:

• Be an employee in good standing
• Watch video of talk by the author of Reinventing Organizations
• Read “Reinventing Organizations“
• Give notice of their intention to leave anytime during the month of April 2015, and
• Ensure a smooth transition of their prior responsibilities and accountabilities.

Once all the non-believers are gone, will this Teal plan work. It’s a big gamble — one Hsieh acknowledges:

“This is a new, exciting, and bold move for Zappos. Like all the bold steps we’ve done in the past, it feels a little scary, but it also feels like exactly the type of thing that only a company such as Zappos would dare to attempt at this scale,” he wrote. “… I can’t wait to see how we reinvent ourselves, and I can’t wait to see what unfolds next.”

For more HR News, please visit: To go where few companies have gone before — a land without managers

Source: News from HR Morning

The latest FMLA lawsuit to gain prominence shows the expensive danger of failing to incorporate some form of flexibility in return-to-work policies. In the case, an employee wanted to return to work, but her employer wouldn’t let her until she underwent an unusual medical exam. 

Broward Health, which runs hospitals in Broward County, FL, has a policy that requires employees who’ve missed work due to surgery to submit to a medical examination of their wounds before being allowed to return to work.

Broward takes this policy very seriously. In fact, its strict adherence to the policy is well documented in a new lawsuit brought against Broward Health by Andrea Santiago, who worked for the employer as a social worker until she was fired.

What happened?

According to Santiago’s lawsuit, she was granted FMLA leave after she informed the employer that she needed a mastectomy resulting from her breast cancer.

After taking less than a month of FMLA leave, Santiago was cleared by her doctor to return to work.

Santiago knew about the return-to-work policy, as she had her breasts examined by Broward Health’s in-house medical clinic following an earlier biopsy. She claimed the examination by her employer was “demeaning and humiliating.”

So following her mastectomy, Santiago asked if the exam requirement could be waived. A Broward nurse she spoke to indicated that the requirement might be waived if Santiago could provide a note from her doctor declaring that she had no open wounds or sutures.

Santiago then submitted such a note to Broward. But the employer refused to waive the exam requirement. Santiago then tried appealing to the medical clinic’s management — again having no luck with anyone she spoke with.

During this process, Santiago even gave Broward permission to speak to her doctor about her condition. That had no effect. Broward officials still insisted she submit to the exam.

Santiago finally took her waiver request to Broward’s head of HR, who also told her she’d need to submit to the examination. Santiago then countered by saying she’d done some research and found that the policy violated both the ADA and the FMLA, and that she “did not want to have to hire an attorney.”

Broward still didn’t budge.

Santiago then got her attorney to submit a letter to Broward, explaining that the return-to-work policy violated the FMLA.

To that, Broward’s attorney responded with a letter of his own, reiterating that the policy would not be waived.

Submit or else

Santiago was then informed via a separate letter that she had until March 18, 2015 to submit to the exam or be terminated.

When she failed to submit to the exam by that date she was sent another letter stating that she had voluntarily resigned from her position.

On April 3, Santiago sued Broward health, claiming FMLA interference and retaliation.

Her claims have yet to be heard, but this case is a good example of what can happen when employers fail to bend even a little in the return-to-work process.

Broward’s desire to make sure employees returning to work don’t have open wounds that could affect patients’ health is certainly understandable. But, having only Santiago’s lawsuit as a guide, it certainly seems Broward could’ve found some wiggle room in its policy — by at least discussing Santiago’s condition with her doctor for starters.

That kind of flexibility can do wonders in the courtroom — or keep you out of one altogether.

Even if Broward wins the case, it now stands to lose a pretty penny. Fighting a case like this isn’t cheap.

Cite: Santiago v. Broward Health

For more HR News, please visit: Employee forced to show mastectomy scars after FMLA leave — or get fired

Source: News from HR Morning

Just a reminder: It’s not just the feds who are on the lookout for wage and hour violators — it’s state authorities, too.  

Case in point: New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced settlements totaling $970,000 with four current Domino’s Pizza franchisees, who together own 29 stores across New York State, as well as with one former franchisee who owned six stores. The franchisees admitted to a number of labor violations, including minimum wage, overtime or other basic labor law protections, according to Schneiderman’s office.

The admitted violations varied by location and time period, and included the following:

• Some stores paid delivery workers below the tipped minimum wage applicable to delivery workers under New York law.
• Some stores failed to pay overtime to employees who worked over 40 hours in a week, and others under-paid overtime, because they did not combine all hours worked at multiple stores owned by the same franchisee, or because they used the wrong formula to calculate overtime for tipped workers, unlawfully reducing workers’ pay.
• Delivery workers who used their own cars to make deliveries were not fully reimbursed for their job-related vehicle expenses.
• Delivery workers who used their own bicycles to make deliveries were typically not reimbursed for any expenses related to maintaining their bicycles, nor were they provided with protective gear as required by New York City law.
• Some stores violated a state requirement that employers must pay an additional hour at minimum wage when employees’ daily shifts are longer than 10 hours.
• Some stores also violated a state requirement that employers must pay restaurant workers for at least three hours of work when those employees report to work for a longer shift but are ultimately sent home early because of slow business or other reasons.
• Some stores took a “tip credit” without tracking tips, and assigned delivery workers to kitchen or other untipped work for more time than legally permitted. Employers may only take a “tip credit” and pay a lower minimum wage to tipped restaurant employees if those employees earn enough in tips and spend most of their time – at least 80 percent –performing tipped work.

Schneiderman’s been on Domino’s case for awhile. The recent agreements follow settlements announced last year with six Domino’s pizza franchisees, who together owned 23 stores and agreed to pay a total of $448,000 in restitution.

For more HR News, please visit: Reminder: The states are looking at your pay practices, too

Source: News from HR Morning

Employee reviews are arguably the best opportunity an organization has to energize and motivate its employees. For many organizations, though, the process of scheduling, executing and documenting reviews can be incredibly arduous. Performance management software can help modernize and automate the process, but there are so many software solutions on the market, how do you know which one is right for your organization? Let the unbiased experts at Software Advice help. They’ve reviewed more than 50 systems and are ready to help you narrow your search so you can find the vendor that’s right for you.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Best Employee Evaluation Software – Review Top 10 Systems for 2015

Source: News from HR Morning

Let’s give this employer the benefit of the doubt and assume it was trying to do the right thing. Even if that was the case, its actions still appear to have violated the ADA. 

The company in question is Baldwin Supply Company, a Minneapolis-based distributor.

It employed Timothy Collins to install conveyor belts — until he had a heart attack.

According to the EEOC, a month after Collins’ heart attack, he was released by his doctor to resume work with no restrictions. Baldwin then only let Collins return for two days before terminating him.

Reading between the lines, one could surmise that Baldwin had the best of intentions in this case: trying to keep Collins from performing a job it felt could be detrimental to his health condition.

After all, installing conveyor belts sounds like taxing work — and may trigger another heart attack.

But whether or not he should return to work was a decision for Collins to make — not Baldwin, according to the EEOC.

ADA lawsuit filed

When the EEOC caught wind of Collins’ termination, it sued the employer on his behalf, alleging Baldwin violated the ADA.

The ADA protects employees from being discriminated against based on perceived disabilities. And assuming the EEOC’s telling of Collins’ story is accurate, it appears as though Baldwin did discriminate against him based on a disability the employer thought he had — even if it did so for Collins’ own good.

The EEOC’s lawsuit sought back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

What it got was Baldwin agreeing to settle the lawsuit for $50,000 worth of monetary relief for Collins.

When good intentions go bad

This is a cautionary tale that even good intentions can pave the way for a costly lawsuit.

Even if Collins’ workload could’ve eventually led to another heart attack — a fear Baldwin would’ve been justified in having — the ADA prohibited the employer from taking action against him for any reason associated with his medical condition.

Bottom line: Without having some other nondiscriminatory reason to terminate Collins, his employer was obligated to abide by the doctor’s instructions to return Collins to his previous job (or an equivalent one) without restrictions.

For more HR News, please visit: Good intentions can cost you K under the ADA: Here’s how

Source: News from HR Morning

A health clinic in Florida has the dubious distinction of becoming the first employer to settle an EEOC claim of sex discrimination against a transgender employee.  

Lakeland Eye Clinic will pay $150,000 to settle one of the first two such lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced. A second, against Detroit-based R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, remains unresolved.

The Lakeland case involved the clinic’s director of hearing services, identified as Brandi Branson in a Miami Herald story.

At the time of her hiring, the Globe said, Branson went by Michael and presented himself as male. About six months later, Branson started wearing make-up and women’s clothing to work. She noticed colleagues making fun of her and was eventually confronted about her changing appearance, according to the EEOC lawsuit.

Branson explained that she was transitioning from male to female and would be changing her name to Brandi. By April, only one physician was referring patients to Branson despite the fact that she’d been performing her job successfully, the lawsuit states.

In June 2011, the clinic fired Branson on the grounds that her position was being eliminated. That August, the clinic hired a replacement.

Branson filed a complaint with the EEOC, which subsequently charged the clinic took the action it did because Branson was transgender, transitioning from male to female, and because she did not conform to the employer’s gender-based stereotypes.

Along with the monetary settlement, Lakeland aagreed to implement a new gender discrimination policy and to provide training to its management and employees regarding transgender/gender stereotype discrimination.  The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court in Tampa.

For more HR News, please visit: A first: Transgender sex bias case settled for 0K

Source: News from HR Morning

“April is the cruelest month,” T.S. Eliot said. And April 2015 is especially cruel — the National Labor Relations Board’s “ambush elections” rules went into effect.  

Since President Obama’s March 31 veto of a bill that would have blocked the implementation of the quickie election rules, this employer’s nightmare became a fait accompli. The rules became effective April 14.

Costangy Brooks attorney David Phippen recently put together a comprehensive document outlining what the new rules mean for employers (here’s a repost by Costangy’s esteemed blogger Robin Shea).

A small sampling of Phippen’s guidance:

Compressed time frame

Under the old rules, the time between the filing of an election petition and the election was about 42 days. But because the new rules compress the time between the various stages of union organizing — and the employer’s responsibilities in response to the organizing effort — that time frame is expected to squeeze down to about 13-21 days.

Notices and communication

The old rules did not require the employer to post a Notice of Petition after receiving it from the NLRB. Under the new rule, the employer must post the notice, and in some cases send it to all affected employees electronically, within two business days after receipt of the notice.

Prior to April 14, the NLRB required parties to use paper for petition filings and certain notifications. Under the new rule, electronic filings and communications will be the norm. Election petitions can be filed with the NLRB and served on the employer electronically.

Petition hearings

The old way: A pre-election hearing had to be scheduled within 14 days of the filing of the election petition. Under the new rule, the NLRB must schedule the hearing “for a date 8 days from the date of service [on the employer] of the notice” of hearing and the petition, “absent special circumstances.” The new rule does authorize a maximum of two, two-day extensions of the hearing date.

The old way: Parties were entitled to file post-hearing briefs within seven days of the pre-election hearing. Under the new rule, post-hearing briefs are allowed only in the discretion of the Regional Director. In other words, the “default” will be no post-hearing briefs — which will have the effect of cutting seven days from the period between the petition and the election.

Preliminary voter lists

This is a new wrinkle.  No later than noon on the last business day before the pre-election hearing, the employer must give the Board and union a list of the names, job classifications, work locations, and work shifts, of all employees in the petitioned-for unit. This requirement is expected to benefit unions by ensuring that they receive employee information at the earliest possible stage in the campaign, says Phippen.

Voter eligibility

Under the old rules, the employer could contest the eligibility of specific voters, and have those issues resolved, before the election was held. Under the new rule, the election may take place first, and any challenges may be resolved later.

That’s just a taste of what employers will be facing should they come up against a union organizing effort in the coming months and years. To read the NLRB’s official stance on union elections, go here.

For more HR News, please visit: They’re here: NLRB’s ‘quickie elections’ rules are now official

Source: News from HR Morning

While new technology initiatives are a regular part of the business landscape, more than 17 percent fail, sometimes generating large enough cost overruns as to put an organization’s future in jeopardy. Yet, even successful projects often fail to achieve the full range of intended benefits. In the case of a technology project seeking to hit its mark, from staying on budget to achieving the desired results, these failures can be traced back to shortcomings in how the human element of the project was managed. Effectively managing the transition can keep a technology initiative on track, help employees focus on the benefits of the new solution and support a positive rollout with lasting results.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Overcoming the 5 Roadblocks to Workforce Management Success

Source: News from HR Morning