HR Morning News, Page 29 Category

Sure seems like a lot of underperforming employees who get axed try to extract revenge by suing their former employers for some lame reason — retaliation seems to be the charge du jour. So it’s good to see a case where common sense trumps stupidity.  

We refer to a recent appeals court decision out of Texas involving one Courtney Satterwhite, who worked in the City of Houston’s controller’s office.

Satterwhite and a co-worker, Harry Singh, were in a meeting when, Satterwhite claimed, Singh used the phrase “Heil Hitler.” (Singh claimed he said “You know, we’re not in Hitler court” — whatever that might mean.)

After the meeting, Satterwhite informed Singh that another city employee, Daniel Schein, was offended by Singh’s remarks.

Although Singh apologized to Schein and Schein declined to file a formal complaint, Satterwhite reported the incident to the deputy director of human resources, who reported it to the city’s chief deputy controller, Chris Brown. Brown verbally reprimanded Singh.

So. A minor workplace disagreement, disciplinary action taken, case closed, right? No way.

Retaliation charged

A few months later, Singh was promoted and now served as Satterwhite’s supervisor. Things did not go swimmingly.

Singh disciplined Satterwhite for a number of issues, including being absent from his desk for a long period of time and changing office procedures without notifying other employees. Satterwhite claimed he was being singled out for discipline because he had filed the “Heil Hitler” report with HR.

Eventually, Singh had enough. He recommended that, given Satterwhite’s disciplinary record, Satterwhite should be demoted. The city controller agreed, and Satterwhite was demoted two pay grades.

Satterwhite went to the EEOC and made a formal charge of unlawful retaliation. He then brought suit in federal court.

Two strikes, he’s out of luck

In the case’s first go-round, the federal district court ruled that the city had ample and reasonable grounds for demoting Satterwhite, so it was not retaliating for his report to HR.

But it’s the judge’s decision in appeals court that should warm the hearts of employers. Here it is, in relevant part:

No reasonable person would believe that the single “Heil Hitler” incident is actionable under Title VII. The Supreme Court has made clear that a court determines whether a work environment is hostile “by looking at all the circumstances, ’including the ‘frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it nreasonably nterferes with an employee’s work performance.’” Furthermore, “isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)” do not amount to actionable conduct under Title VII.

Case cite: Satterwhite v. City of Houston.

For more HR News, please visit: Sanity prevails: Single remark can’t support a retaliation lawsuit

Source: News from HR Morning

You don’t get any points for how inventive you are when doing it. The bottom line is violating the FLSA’s going to cost you a pretty penny when the DOL finds out about it. 

Case in point: Honolulu-based M.H. Electric was just taken to task by DOL investigators for violating the overtime regulations of the FLSA in a rather inventive way.

Most of the time, employers who violate overtime law just flat out ignore the OT hours their employees put in. But not M.H.

According to the DOL, this employer “systematically “banked” those overtime hours at straight-time wage rates for future use … ”

Employees could then tap into those hours during weeks when they worked less than 40 hours.

Heck, you’ve got to give M.H. credit for at least trying to keep employees’ paychecks consistent. After all, nobody likes seeing a small check during those weeks when you’re a little short on work.

We’re kidding of course. This practice kept employees from earning time-and-a-half when they worked more than 40 hours in a single week — and that’s a big no-no.

When the DOL caught wind of this, it launched an investigation.

The agency determined M.H. violated the overtime standards of the FLSA and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act at 10 federally funded construction projects awarded in Hawaii between 2012 and 2014 by the Hawaii Air National Guard and the U.S. Departments of the Navy, Army and Veterans Affairs.

As you can imagine, the feds didn’t look too kindly upon this. The employer must now pay $305K in back wages and damages to 65 workers.

For more HR News, please visit: Creative attempt to dodge FLSA costs employer 5K

Source: News from HR Morning

Ready to make an impression on a room full of people? Remember these four lessons from professional speakers:

1. Just seven seconds

Some folks think the average adult’s attention span is 30 minutes.

Nope, not even close. It’s only seven seconds.

Even though we can quickly refocus on the task at hand, our minds wander onto something else every few seconds.

Strategy: Pause before and after making a key point. Those cues clue your listeners to pay attention.

And give a brief example after a point so the listener creates an image in his or her mind.

Speakers who use examples get better results.

2. ‘What’s in it for me?’

Even the greatest speaker won’t hold your attention very long if the topic doesn’t matter to you.

Tell people up front why what you’re talking about matters and how it will benefit or affect them.

Do this even for required training. You must first know – and believe in – the purpose of your message so that others will buy in.

3. Cut the distractions

You don’t need cell phones going off when running a meeting, even a short one.

Ask listeners to please turn off devices first, in a friendly way.

4. Ask for questions

Don’t always assume people understand all your points. Remember:?They’re drifting off every seven seconds or so.

Effective communicators say, “Was that last point clear?” or “Would anyone like more info on something I said?”

Then answer any and all questions.

For more HR News, please visit: Presentations: You’ve got 7 seconds to pull ‘em in

Source: News from HR Morning

Your employer brand counts big time when attracting, influencing and retaining top talent. But what exactly is an “employer brand” and why is it so important to monitor it? Learn the secrets of building an employer brand that attracts top talent.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Employer Branding For Dummies, Glassdoor Special Edition

Source: News from HR Morning

The worst kept secret in HR: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is doing whatever it can to “protect employees speech rights” — or, as many employers see it, give workers the green light to say pretty much whatever they want about their employers. 

The latest example involves Pier Sixty LLC, a catering company, and Hernan Perez, a server for the company.

The NLRB just ruled that Pier Sixty violated the National Labor Relations Act and illegally fired Perez for participating in “protected concerted activity.”

Under the act, an employee engages in protected concerted activity when he or she acts with other employees in an attempt to improve working conditions.

Usually, this form of activity manifests itself in the form of workers complaining about their employer or managers together.

The Pier Sixty case follows this familiar narrative. But the troubling thing for employers is that in its ruling, the NLRB blurs the line between what it considers “protected speech” and flat out insubordination that employers will want to quickly stamp out.

Harsh criticism of manager

The actions that got Perez fired involved him taking to his personal Facebook page and posting the following comment about his manager (Bob):

“Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER F****R don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f*****g family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!”

Not surprisingly, when the employer caught wind of this Facebook rant, it terminated Perez — as most employers probably would.

Perez then filed an unfair labor practice charge against Pier Sixty — such charges can be levied against all employers, unionized or not.

And, to many employers’ chagrin, the NLRB sided with Perez.

Pier Sixty was then ordered to reinstate Perez to his former seniority and pay him any wages lost as a result of his termination, with interest.

Inmates running the asylum?

How did the NLRB justify taking such a seemingly unbelievable move?

Warning: This won’t appease employers. But here’s what it said:

“… while distasteful, the Respondent (Pier Sixty) tolerated the widespread use of profanity in the workplace, including the words “f***” and “motherf****r.” Considered in this setting, Perez’ use of those words in his Facebook post would not cause him to lose the protection of the Act.”

So basically, because the employer allowed employees to use off-color language on the job, it couldn’t punish Perez for the vulgarity of his comments toward his manager.

What’s more troubling, in light of other recent protected speech rulings by the NLRB, it seems unlikely the board would even tolerate many policies banning workplace profanity in the first place.

Bottom line: This ruling takes a little more power out of the hands of employers to stamp out worker subordination.

How much longer before the inmates are allowed to completely run the asylum?

Cite: Pier Sixty LLC

For more HR News, please visit: Unbelievable: NLRB rules worker’s ‘F*** his family’ statement is protected speech

Source: News from HR Morning

Lots of companies load their policies and benefit package details on their in-house networks these days. It’s a reasonably hassle-free way of making critical info available to employees without all that wasted paper. But there are situations where relying on your intranet can expose you to some thorny legal problems.    

Take, for instance, the case of Raymond Thomas, who was trying to collect on the life insurance benefit of his late sister, Judith.

Judith began working for Countryside, a home mortgage provider, in 2002. As an active employee, she automatically received various benefits, including basic life Insurance. She also opted to enroll in Countrywide’s voluntary life insurance plan, which required her to pay “contributions” to cover the premiums.

Judith stopped working for Countryside in 2004, alleging that she was disabled. She never returned to work, and eventually passed away in 2008. Her brother Raymond was named as beneficiary on both her insurance policies.

The company’s benefits policy stated that the life insurance coverage ends when an “employee is no longer in active service.” Since Judith hadn’t been working when she died, the insurance company denied Raymond’s claim for the proceeds of his sister’s policies.

Key clause

And this is where the case starts to get tangled. Countryside had opted to place its summary plan description on the company intranet, rather than distribute written copies. And in that SPD, there was a clause stating that an employee who wasn’t in “active service” could continue her life insurance coverage — with a waiver in premiums — if that employee simply provided proof of her disability within a year of leaving her job.

But Raymond claimed his sister never knew of that clause, because she hadn’t received a copy of the SPD. The company argued that Judith had access to the Countryside intranet — and therefore the SPD — the whole time she had worked for the mortgage provider.

Kenneth Mason, writing on the Spencer Fane law firm blog, described the judge’s decision:

The court concluded that the steps taken by the employer did not comply with the DOL regulations governing the electronic distribution of SPDs.   … [T]hose regulations limit this option to participants who can effectively access electronic documents wherever the participant is reasonably expected to perform his or her duties, and for whom access to the employer’s electronic information system is a regular part of those duties. 

While that may have been true of this employee before she became disabled, it was not the case when she actually needed the SPD.  This was after she had terminated her employment (due to the disability), thereby losing access to the intranet.  As a result, she could not access the SPD during the 12-month period in which she was required to submit proof of her disability.

What’s more, the judge said, Countryside had failed to notify her when the SPD was posted in 2004 — another breach of DOL regs.

Could get costly

So what happens now? Here’s Mason’s take:

Because the employer had effectively failed to provide this employee with an SPD, the court concluded that the insurer’s denial of her claim for the waiver-of-premium benefit was arbitrary and capricious.  As a result, the beneficiary will likely be entitled to the policy proceeds.

Whether this case will end there is an open question.  Typically, employer life insurance policies obligate the employer to provide copies of the SPD to all participants.  Because this employer did not do so, the insurer may expect the employer to reimburse it for some or all of the policy proceeds.

Those proceeds, by the way, would total $208,000.

Case cite: Thomas v. Cigna Group Insurance.

For more HR News, please visit: Posting benefits info on your network: Court points out a potential danger zone

Source: News from HR Morning

Because the focus of this year’s National Employee Benefits Day is Wellness 2.0, it seems appropriate to ask: Is cost-cutting the top reason employers offer wellness programs — or is there a more magnanimous reason behind the healthy living push?   

That question was at the heart of a recent WorldatWork study.

The organized polled 443 HR pros and asked them why their companies offered a wellness program. Here were HR pros’ top responses:

• Improve employee health (cited by 85% of HR pros)
• Because of the perceived value to employees (79%)
• Decrease medical premiums (77%)
• Improve productivity (73%)
• Increase engagement (72%), and
• Reduce absenteeism (64%).

No premium on premiums?

Based on those responses, it looks like employers are putting employee health- and well-being ahead of their own healthcare costs with their wellness efforts.

Of course, it’s easy to say employee health and well-being is the top company priority. Following through with that claim is something else all together.

For its part, WorldatWork did try to see how far employers were willing to go to back up those lofty claims.

The study found that an impressive 96% of the employers supported well-being programs for employees, and 75% of firms plan on beefing up those programs over the next two years.

What’s more, even if employer-sponsored healthcare was eliminated at these firms, just 29% of firms said they drop their disease management program as well and only 26% said they’d discontinue their wellness coaching.

Top-5 trends

Finally, the study also offered some insight into the types of wellness and scheduling trends your peers are offering.

According to the study, the five most common health-related well-being benefits employers offer are:

1. Immunizations (offered by 73% of firms)
2. Physical fitness (70%)
3. Mental/behavioral coverage (69%)
4. Diet and nutrition (62%), and
5. Smoking cessation (60%).

But well-being benefits aren’t limited to health-specific offerings. As WorldatWork Senior Practice Leader Rose Stanley put it: â€œSuccessful organizations are discovering that an innovative approach to well-being goes beyond the employee’s physical health.”

So the study searched out the top work-life balance benefits being offered by employers. These included:

1. Encourage use of vacation (Cited by 66% of companies)
2. Flexible schedules (65%)
3. Community involvement (56%)
4. Child-care assistance (29%), and
5. Elder-care assistance (23%).

For more HR News, please visit: What’s the real motivation behind wellness programs?

Source: News from HR Morning

Rather than relying on gut feel, talent analytics can predict the candidates who are best fit for an organization’s culture and for the unique demands of high value roles. They can help predict the optimal retention strategies to employ with top talent at risk of leaving, and identify who those high risk employees are. With the use of talent analytics, HR can also help analyze social chatter so that organizations can be in tune with changing employee sentiment in real time, and devise strategies to improve it. Hear a panel of HR leaders engage in a conversation about how they are using predictive and prescriptive analytics applied to talent to drive better business results. Join us to explore how you can be more effective in designing pilots, demonstrating the ROI for talent analytics, and translating talent data into talent insight.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Changing the Talent Game: Find and Keep More Rock Stars on Your Team with Analytics

Source: News from HR Morning