Shyam started a new role with a new manager. He discovered that the health report was tampered. His own assessment of the machine was it was malfunctioning. Previous health reports were not to be found. He reported this to his manager who asked him to ignore the health report and complete transition from the outgoing employee. Shyam insisted that a valid health report was necessary for him to agree that the machine was healthy at the time he took over.
Twice, Shyam’s manager directed him to complete the transition but Shyam insisted on the health report. He did not want to provide a false health status of the machine and risk violating company policy.
Shyam and his manager continued to work together on a couple of maintenance tasks while the issue of health report remained unresolved.
3 months later, Shyam was charged with slow progress and ordered to work inder daily supervision for 1 month. This meeting had the branch head, HR in attendance. Shyam repeated the health report issue but it was not recorded in meeting summary. Shyam then emailed his issue so that there was a record of it. The daily supervision order was not implemented.
Two months passed with no progress on the health report issue. Shyam had not been assigned any new tasks and did a few small maintenance jobs.
He was then issued a notice for insubordination. The charge was that he had not followed the directive of his manager 5 months ago. Shyam’s response was rejected and he was terminated. The termination letter stated that his issue of health report was investigated but found unsubstantiated.
Is it to charge insubordination 5 months after the event? Won’t the fact that Shyam worked normally with his manager after the event invalidate the charge?
Is it valid that the investigation was delayed by 5 months from the time it was bought to the notice of his manger and 2 months from when it was notified to HR? Won’t this cause the investigation to be seen as biased with opportunity to tamper with evidence?
Twice, Shyam’s manager directed him to complete the transition but Shyam insisted on the health report. He did not want to provide a false health status of the machine and risk violating company policy.
Shyam and his manager continued to work together on a couple of maintenance tasks while the issue of health report remained unresolved.
3 months later, Shyam was charged with slow progress and ordered to work inder daily supervision for 1 month. This meeting had the branch head, HR in attendance. Shyam repeated the health report issue but it was not recorded in meeting summary. Shyam then emailed his issue so that there was a record of it. The daily supervision order was not implemented.
Two months passed with no progress on the health report issue. Shyam had not been assigned any new tasks and did a few small maintenance jobs.
He was then issued a notice for insubordination. The charge was that he had not followed the directive of his manager 5 months ago. Shyam’s response was rejected and he was terminated. The termination letter stated that his issue of health report was investigated but found unsubstantiated.
Is it to charge insubordination 5 months after the event? Won’t the fact that Shyam worked normally with his manager after the event invalidate the charge?
Is it valid that the investigation was delayed by 5 months from the time it was bought to the notice of his manger and 2 months from when it was notified to HR? Won’t this cause the investigation to be seen as biased with opportunity to tamper with evidence?