Fired for job abandonment

[BigUnionGuy]

Story goes im utility right now, because of an injury i cant lift over 50lbs and cannot be in my usual sort aisle or preloading trucks i been labeled permant disabled.

Do you have an ADA approved accomadation ?

Or.... are your local management people that dumb, they don't know the difference ?

 

[UpsAngel]

Do you have an ADA approved accomadation ?

Or.... are your local management people that dumb, they don't know the difference ?

In process of ada accommoation. Takes time and lot of doctor signatures.

Right now only reason they are accommodating is because QME company sent me to leaned towards my favor. Said ups was direct cause of my disabilty and added perm restrictions.

 

[Over disciplined0123]

4 years with ups definetly not a newcomer.

Anyway, today im working and i get called in to a discharge paper for job abandonment.

Story goes im utility right now, because of an injury i cant lift over 50lbs and cannot be in my usual sort aisle or preloading trucks i been labeled permant disabled. So i kind of just roam to where needed somedays they forget about me completely. Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

Back to today, he tells me i had abandoned my job and therefore it was grounds for dismissal i was in the biggest shock because i been back for 3 weeks since my injury and have left like this before. I really wish i would have looked for a super and just daud bye before i walked out.

Steward said not to worry that i will get my job back in no time. Gave me # to BA. BA happened to be meeting up with my management today and will mention my case. If notresolved today he said it would resolve itself within a week for wrongful termination because i wasnt even given a warning or even a he said she said.

I know i screwed up by not telling at lest a part timer that i was clocking out. What are my chances of getting my job back? At this point i can even use the negative comments. Im a mess right now just thinking about my 6 month old and his benefits.

I also was fired for same. I was like where the did you pull that new rule from and this was 3 years ago. I never in my life heard of job abandonment. 25 year driver at the time who bid inside for 1 bid and realized that working inside was not for me . I was fired for 3 days

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I wasn't going to mention any names. Your secret WAS safe with me.

And, like I said, there is always more to the story.

Now it comes out.



That sure sounds like do not clock out yet to me.



OK.

I said I was hard on you because you're not new here. If you were a 3 month employee, I would be much easier.

You know better.

You said that on the same job, your sup told you to stay there.

Who cares if another sup may think you're stealing time.

You are working as directed. Yet you failed to work as directed and clocked out and left.

I'm sure you will be back, and when you are, please do not clock out and leave without letting your sup know.

And I also sincerely hope that your disability is not permanent, that your back will get better with time.

"best interest of the employer..."

 

[UpsAngel]

I wasn't going to mention any names. Your secret WAS safe with me.

And, like I said, there is always more to the story.

Now it comes out.e



That sure sounds like do not clock out yet to me.



OK.

I said I was hard on you because you're not new here. If you were a 3 month employee, I would be much easier.

You know better.

You said that on the same job, your sup told you to stay there.

Who cares if another sup may think you're stealing time.

You are working as directed. Yet you failed to work as directed and clocked out and left.

I'm sure you will be back, and when you are, please do not clock out and leave without letting your sup know.

And I also sincerely hope that your disability is not permanent, that your back will get better with time.

Sup came up to me and said to shut down my area i was done then never came back.

What did he mean by done?
Done here for the day go do more work . Your done go home.

Not my job to be chasin down supervisors its their job me to chase me down and instruct the worker this was almost daily practice just abandon me with no further instruction.

I feel like i was set up.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

For the record sup came up to me and said to shut down my area i was done then never came back.

What did he mean by done?
Done here for the day go do more work . Your done go home.

Not my job to be chasin down supervisors its their job me to chase me down and instruct the worker this was almost daily practice just abandon me with no further instruction.

I feel like i was set up.

You should have tracked him down

 

[olroadbeech]

sounds like the story is always changing?

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Do you have an ADA approved accomadation ?

In process of ada accommoation. Takes time and lot of doctor signatures.]

Pending a request for an ADA accommodation....

And you are working ?

 

[over9five]

Pending a request for an ADA accommodation....

And you are working ?

The story is crumbling....

 

[Mugarolla]

Not my job to be chasin down supervisors

Yes it is. You're getting paid to chase him down.

You should have tracked him down

I know, you beat me to it.

Pending a request for an ADA accommodation....

And you are working ?

Welcome to the thread that you said you wouldn't have wasted any time on.

Stick around. This is getting interesting.

The story is crumbling...

They usually do.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

So anyone can leave work after they feel they've completed their non-defined work as long as they "intend" to return the following day? You should be doing stand up in Vegas.

It depends on several factors. If it is common for employees to leave once their work is done without checking in (as was suggested by OP), then, yes. I was simply going by the definition of job abandonment, and this situation does not fit the definition.

Inaccurate.

Single-word, syntactically null response. Not an argument.

Mug is not taking any side. However, he is more experienced in contract enforcement and labor law than you, which is proven by your inaccurate assumption of the ease of success using a "past practice" argument.

I wasn't specifically referring to Mug, just in general it seems that the people who respond to these types of threads presume guilt. I approach them as a theoretical case study, and I base my argument on the facts presented. Of course it's not the whole story, but I'd rather side with the under dog in the story. UPS is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they don't need some forum dwellers to affirm their actions. Plus it helps me hone my argument skills. I don't particularly care if other people think I'm wrong, or less experienced, I'm just interested in exploring the situation and maybe learn something in the process.

I don't think I ever assumed it would be easy to establish past pratices, just stated that they could be established based on the provided information, and if they were, the OP shouldn't have even be disciplined, let alone terminated. But, out of curiosity, in your experience, what is the test that is used to establish past practices? If you were to represent the OP in this case, would you use a past practices argument? Why/why not?

The whole point here is you don't "know" anything about the real facts of this case other than the rosy side the OP presented.
A rookie steward finds out very fast how many "material facts" are conveniently withheld by at fault grievants.

To clarify, I'm not arguing this case. I don't represent the OP. I am arguing a hypothetical case identical to the one presented by the OP, as are we all. In a real situation, my strategy and position would likely change based on discovery of previously unknown facts.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

At the time the OP left and went home, without telling anyone, how does UPS know that he will show up the next day?

Pick up a phone. I feel confident that a phone call would have gotten the OP back to work and sorted out any misunderstanding there may have been without needing to resort to going immediately to termination. At another company, as a manager, hr would not allow me to terminate someone until they no called no showed at least three shifts after at least one attempt to contact the employee. There may have been extenuating circumstances. The fact that they went straight to termination, in this case, suggests that management was more worried about the accommodation issues than about treating an employee fairly.

And you think what he did was no big deal?

Not nearly as big a deal as the management is trying to trump it up to be, and certainly not grounds for immediate termination. Even without past practices consideration I can't see justification for more than a write up in this case.

Do you know how many people just clock out, don't tell anyone, and never come back? It happens almost daily somewhere.

No doubt. I certainly sympathize with the challenges involved in maintaining an adequate work force, which is all the more reason not to jump the gun in terminating people when warnings will suffice. Also, the OP did return in this case.

You're equating tardiness to someone leaving their job and walking out without asking, or telling anyone?

Someone who thinks it's OK to just leave whenever they feel like it?

Not equating, though certainly relating. Based on the information provided I don't think the OP felt it was ok to leave whenever he wanted, simply felt like it was what he should have done in that situation. A warning would have sufficed to correct that. I realize, based on the provided information up to the point of my original argument, that we don't know if the supervisor would have said it was ok to leave or not had the OP asked. If the answer to that is yes, then the only thing the OP did that could be construed as improper was failing to check, which doesn't hurt the company any more (or at all) than someone who shows up two minutes late.

While they may not enforce what's on that piece of paper, the Company must make their policy known before they can discipline anyone for violating such policy.

And yes, sometimes it's verbal, not necessarily written down on a piece of paper.

If a company does not enforce their policies, or enforces them sporadically, then those policies are no good in the eyes of the law. Which is why I say policy is what the company does, not what is on paper. HR and Business Law 101. How is an employee supposed to know what is acceptable behavior, as far as the company is concerned, when the company is inconsistent in their enforcement?

Singled out for clocking out and going home whenever he wants without notifying anyone?

More than a slight misrepresentation of what happened. Saying "whenever he wants" suggests it's an ongoing problem, and that he did so for his own purposes, not because he didn't want to get in trouble for stealing time. Once again, not saying he shouldn't have checked in, just saying he didn't need to be terminated for a possibly harmless mistake.

Fake?

I agree that he will get his job back, but discharging someone for leaving their job without notifying anyone is not a fake discharge.

Would you prefer "unjustified". I'd say fake because the reason for the termination likely has nothing to do with the reason they wanted to terminate him, but that's just speculation.

I am sure there is more to the story, though.

No doubt, and I'll happily alter my position appropriately as more facts come to light.

People need to put their big boy pants on and take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

This really speaks to the heart of my problem with this apparent habit that some managers have of jumping right to termination. It's a major disruption in an employee's life, and even if it turns out not to be justified, the manager is apparently at no risk of any consequence for their actions. So we tell an employee to put on their big boy pants, which I have no problem with, but then ignore the fact that management faces zero responsibility for disrupting a person's life completely out of proportion with the actual offense, if any actual offense even exists. And they only get away with it because we let them.

I believe that I told @Dragon awhile back that I was a TIYS Specialist.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't read every post on every thread on this forum. I have never heard of a TIYS Specialist, so that doesn't tell me whether you are management or not. Based on your approach to this matter, if you aren't management, then you could easily replace them, because you seem to be making their arguments for them.

Maybe you should, you might actually make sense.

I'll work on ratcheting it down a bit for you.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Update: 4 others have joined me for job abandonment. Anyone who clocked out without consent of management that day was discharged.

Well, at least they tried to hide the fact that you were being singled out. Or were the other 4 production liabilities too?

 

[Inthegame]

It depends on several factors. If it is common for employees to leave once their work is done without checking in (as was suggested by OP), then, yes. I was simply going by the definition of job abandonment, and this situation does not fit the definition.

The key to that position is whether or not the OP was instructed to continue a work assignment. Subsequent posts indicate the OP was given an assignment he chose to ignore.

... when down i did look for a sup he said just stay in your area. I dont mind standing around but not when managment considers it stealing time. Which is why i ended up just clocking out and calling it a day.

Leaving work after being instructed to stay, pretty much sums up job abandonment.

I wasn't specifically referring to Mug, just in general it seems that the people who respond to these types of threads presume guilt.

Experience. (Another syntactically null response I refer to as poetry.)

I approach them as a theoretical case study, and I base my argument on the facts presented. Of course it's not the whole story, but I'd rather side with the under dog in the story. UPS is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they don't need some forum dwellers to affirm their actions. Plus it helps me hone my argument skills.

So you base your argument on "facts presented" yet root for one side in the labor v capital struggle. You might ponder on that awhile.
The difference between your theoretical case study and what "some forum dwellers" you deride here, is your lunch room argument has no consequence. You can win every time in a forum war. Put yourself on the hot seat at a JAC and see how convincing your theories are.
These "dwellers" respond only to protect others from making poor decisions that have real impacts.

I don't particularly care if other people think I'm wrong, or less experienced, I'm just interested in exploring the situation and maybe learn something in the process.

Good for you but remember, you're shooting with blanks while the guys you're arguing with aren't.

I don't think I ever assumed it would be easy to establish past pratices, just stated that they could be established based on the provided information, and if they were, the OP shouldn't have even be disciplined, let alone terminated. But, out of curiosity, in your experience, what is the test that is used to establish past practices? If you were to represent the OP in this case, would you use a past practices argument? Why/why not?

There are several tests to establish past practice and most are difficult to prove without realms of witness statements to the act. Not necessary in this case. I'd simply argue the OP was given unclear directions and mistakenly under the impression he was released from further assignments. It should be relatively easy to get statements showing the PT sup did this in the past. Depending on the history and believability of the OP, rtw and backpay would be awarded.

 

[UpsAngel]

Pending a request for an ADA accommodation....

And you are working ?

Yes. Its a complicated case. Workers comp is the worst.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The key to that position is whether or not the OP was instructed to continue a work assignment. Subsequent posts indicate the OP was given an assignment he chose to ignore.
Leaving work after being instructed to stay, pretty much sums up job abandonment.
Experience. (Another syntactically null response I refer to as poetry.)
So you base your argument on "facts presented" yet root for one side in the labor v capital struggle. You might ponder on that awhile.
The difference between your theoretical case study and what "some forum dwellers" you deride here, is your lunch room argument has no consequence. You can win every time in a forum war. Put yourself on the hot seat at a JAC and see how convincing your theories are.
These "dwellers" respond only to protect others from making poor decisions that have real impacts.
Good for you but remember, you're shooting with blanks while the guys you're arguing with aren't.
There are several tests to establish past practice and most are difficult to prove without realms of witness statements to the act. Not necessary in this case. I'd simply argue the OP was given unclear directions and mistakenly under the impression he was released from further assignments. It should be relatively easy to get statements showing the PT sup did this in the past. Depending on the history and believability of the OP, rtw and backpay would be awarded.

I'm including myself among those forum dwellers, so it was more self-deprecation than derision. The point I'm making is that if everyone assumes guilt, and no one stands on the side of the employee, how is that helpful? If we argue the theoretical case, the OP can get a better sense of what they're in for. I'll take the opportunity to learn something in the process too. But you folks, with your experience, start making a lot of assumptions based on those experiences, which I agree can be a good thing, but it can also blind you to the realities of the current situation. You start seeing what you expect to see.

From my reading of the OP subsequent posts, which weren't in consideration for my original argument, the day in question the OP says he was told to shut down, that he was done. The day he was told to stay in his area was a different day in the previous week. He did word it somewhat awkwardly, so I understand the confusion. I just hope that, in cases you represent, you actually take the time to listen to the employee, and not just assume they are guilty out the gate.

I do appreciate you taking the time to share your experience in dealing with these situations. Better I learn here than with a case I'm actually representing. And, from what the OP has written, it seems like the BA and I are on the same page, so there's that.

 

[ski or die]

I told you that I am always up for a good debate, no matter how long it takes.



You had a set job, and new when it was done.

There are many positions like this.

The OP was on a made up job, wandering around helping where needed. He had no idea when his job was complete until he was told he was no longer needed.

Big difference.

Part of my position was collecting cod monies from drivers and delivery and pickup records. Not once did I see a driver inform the sup he was going home or if he was needed to go out to help another driver. They just checked in the stuff and left.

 

[Mugarolla]

I was simply going by the definition of job abandonment, and this situation does not fit the definition.

Yes it does.

Single-word, syntactically null response. Not an argument.

But it is true.

it seems that the people who respond to these types of threads presume guilt.

Facts presented.

I base my argument on the facts presented.

But you did not. You hypothesized.

Of course it's not the whole story, but I'd rather side with the under dog in the story.

Never is the whole story. You may eventually learn that.

I'm just interested in exploring the situation and maybe learn something in the process.

To really learn, you need to explore both sides of the equation. Which is why I pointed out the other side to you.

In a real situation, my strategy and position would likely change based on discovery of previously unknown facts.

And they have come out, haven't they?

Pick up a phone. I feel confident that a phone call would have gotten the OP back to work and sorted out any misunderstanding there may have been without needing to resort to going immediately to termination.

Not management's job to call the employee who abandoned his job to see if he really quit.

Should they have done that, yes...but, sorry, not required.

At another company, as a manager, hr would not allow me to terminate someone until they no called no showed at least three shifts after at least one attempt to contact the employee.

Welcome to UPS.

There may have been extenuating circumstances.

Ya think?

The fact that they went straight to termination, in this case, suggests that management was more worried about the accommodation issues than about treating an employee fairly.

Welcome to UPS. By the way, the real story has come out, and you were wrong on your assumptions.

Not nearly as big a deal as the management is trying to trump it up to be, and certainly not grounds for immediate termination.

Yes it is, sorry to disappoint you.

Even without past practices consideration I can't see justification for more than a write up in this case.

Open your eyes a little wider, and you may then see.

A warning would have sufficed to correct that.

Possibly, not not contractually required.

Welcome to UPS.

we don't know if the supervisor would have said it was ok to leave or not had the OP asked.

No we don't. That's why it is job abandonment.

If a company does not enforce their policies, or enforces them sporadically, then those policies are no good in the eyes of the law.

You never been to a State Panel or JAC, have you?

HR and Business Law 101.

Read up on Contract Law.

How is an employee supposed to know what is acceptable behavior, as far as the company is concerned, when the company is inconsistent in their enforcement?

Does not matter about enforcement. If a policy is written, and violated, you are subject to repercussions, unless they have never enforced it. If they have enforced it, just inconsistently, it's the luck of the draw if you violate a policy, but doesn't mean you won't get disciplined.

More than a slight misrepresentation of what happened.

Really?

Saying "whenever he wants" suggests it's an ongoing problem, and that he did so for his own purposes,

No it does not. It just says that he left whenever he wanted, did not check with anyone. Maybe he left with good intention, but that is hypothesizing, or speculting on our part, isn't it.

Once again, not saying he shouldn't have checked in, just saying he didn't need to be terminated for a possibly harmless mistake.

Harmless? How do you know that they weren't looking for him to do something very important, but he was gone?

There, I will hypothesize just as you did.

I'd say fake because the reason for the termination likely has nothing to do with the reason they wanted to terminate him, but that's just speculation.

Speculation alright. Doesn't work in hearings.

And did you see the real truth came out?

No doubt, and I'll happily alter my position appropriately as more facts come to light.

I'm waiting.

More facts always come to light. I've been around the block a time or two.

This really speaks to the heart of my problem with this apparent habit that some managers have of jumping right to termination.

Welcome to UPS.

It's a major disruption in an employee's life, and even if it turns out not to be justified, the manager is apparently at no risk of any consequence for their actions.

And they know it. It keeps employees in line. Welcome to UPS.

So we tell an employee to put on their big boy pants, which I have no problem with, but then ignore the fact that management faces zero responsibility for disrupting a person's life completely out of proportion with the actual offense, if any actual offense even exists. And they only get away with it because we let them.

Then don't let them. That is on you.

because you seem to be making their arguments for them.

Trust me, they already know the argument. Nothing I have said has been any new insight to UPS.

I'll work on ratcheting it down a bit for you.

Thanks.

Put yourself on the hot seat at a JAC and see how convincing your theories are.

And we have a winner!

 

[Mugarolla]

Part of my position was collecting cod monies from drivers and delivery and pickup records. Not once did I see a driver inform the sup he was going home or if he was needed to go out to help another driver. They just checked in the stuff and left.

A driver knows when his job is done. When he has made all his deliveries and pickups, his job is done. He has a job description.

He does not need to ask if he is needed somewhere else before clocking out, unless a sup asks him to check first.

The OP was a utility worker. Walked around helping where needed. No set job.

How does the OP know that he is not needed somewhere else before he just decides to clock out and leave? He asks.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Yes it does.



But it is true.



Facts presented.



But you did not. You hypothesized.



Never is the whole story. You may eventually learn that.



To really learn, you need to explore both sides of the equation. Which is why I pointed out the other side to you.



And they have come out, haven't they?



Not management's job to call the employee who abandoned his job to see if he really quit.

Should they have done that, yes...but, sorry, not required.



Welcome to UPS.



Ya think?



Welcome to UPS. By the way, the real story has come out, and you were wrong on your assumptions.



Yes it is, sorry to disappoint you.



Open your eyes a little wider, and you may then see.



Possibly, not not contractually required.

Welcome to UPS.



No we don't. That's why it is job abandonment.



You never been to a State Panel or JAC, have you?



Read up on Contract Law.



Does not matter about enforcement. If a policy is written, and violated, you are subject to repercussions, unless they have never enforced it. If they have enforced it, just inconsistently, it's the luck of the draw if you violate a policy, but doesn't mean you won't get disciplined.



Really?



No it does not. It just says that he left whenever he wanted, did not check with anyone. Maybe he left with good intention, but that is hypothesizing, or speculting on our part, isn't it.



Harmless? How do you know that they weren't looking for him to do something very important, but he was gone?

There, I will hypothesize just as you did.



Speculation alright. Doesn't work in hearings.

And did you see the real truth came out?



I'm waiting.

More facts always come to light. I've been around the block a time or two.



Welcome to UPS.



And they know it. It keeps employees in line. Welcome to UPS.



Then don't let them. That is on you.



Trust me, they already know the argument. Nothing I have said has been any new insight to UPS.



Thanks.



And we have a winner!

Nothing you've written gives me any reason to change any of my positions on this case. "Trust me, I know more than you" doesn't cut it. You don't owe me more than that, but I also don't have to take your word for anything. You spend more time on personal attacks than arguing the facts, and you base your entire argument on assumptions. I only assumed the OP was being truthful. I am grateful that I will never depend on you to represent me, because I will have lost before we even started.

It's funny to me that in a management job in a non-union environment, we treated our employees better than UPS does it's employees with union support. I don't accept the status quo, and I will do anything in my power to change it. Being jaded and presuming guilt does not factor into change.