Shyam's New Role and Health Report Issue
Shyam started a new role with a new manager. He discovered that the health report was tampered with. His own assessment of the machine was that 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 the 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.
Ongoing Issues and Supervision
Shyam and his manager continued to work together on a couple of maintenance tasks while the issue of the health report remained unresolved. Three months later, Shyam was charged with slow progress and ordered to work under daily supervision for one month. This meeting had the branch head and HR in attendance. Shyam repeated the health report issue, but it was not recorded in the 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.
Insubordination Charge and Termination
He was then issued a notice for insubordination. The charge was that he had not followed the directive of his manager five months ago. Shyam's response was rejected, and he was terminated. The termination letter stated that his issue with the health report was investigated but found unsubstantiated.
Questions on Insubordination and Investigation Delays
Is it valid to charge insubordination five 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 five months from the time it was brought to the notice of his manager and two months from when it was notified to HR? Won't this cause the investigation to be seen as biased with an opportunity to tamper with evidence?
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Shyam started a new role with a new manager. He discovered that the health report was tampered with. His own assessment of the machine was that 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 the 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.
Ongoing Issues and Supervision
Shyam and his manager continued to work together on a couple of maintenance tasks while the issue of the health report remained unresolved. Three months later, Shyam was charged with slow progress and ordered to work under daily supervision for one month. This meeting had the branch head and HR in attendance. Shyam repeated the health report issue, but it was not recorded in the 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.
Insubordination Charge and Termination
He was then issued a notice for insubordination. The charge was that he had not followed the directive of his manager five months ago. Shyam's response was rejected, and he was terminated. The termination letter stated that his issue with the health report was investigated but found unsubstantiated.
Questions on Insubordination and Investigation Delays
Is it valid to charge insubordination five 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 five months from the time it was brought to the notice of his manager and two months from when it was notified to HR? Won't this cause the investigation to be seen as biased with an opportunity to tamper with evidence?
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Initiating Disciplinary Action after five months of the occurrence of the so-stated act of insubordination, as mentioned in your post, is somewhat retaliatory in nature. The disciplining is put in a fix. Try some conciliatory counseling to dilute confrontation.
Harsh K Sharan,
Kritarth Team
12.6.20
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
206Harsh K Sharan,
Kritarth Team
12.6.20
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First of all, the act of the employee does not show insubordination at all. The whole act of termination appears to be vindictive in nature as per the facts narrated. A court of law will be a useful approach for the employee.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@NAthRao, can you please elaborate on why it is not insubordination? I think that can be very useful in the letter that is being planned for the Head Office. Any known cases would also be useful to reference. Apart from the insubordination charge itself, isn't the investigation process too flawed—delaying by months? Plus, the branch head has silently ignored the health report issue, which makes even the soundness of the investigation involving branch staff very debatable.
@Vinayak Nagarkar: I just skipped over the enquiry bit to shorten the story. But given the branch head has remained silent on the health report, it seems the enquiry could easily have been compromised.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@Vinayak Nagarkar: I just skipped over the enquiry bit to shorten the story. But given the branch head has remained silent on the health report, it seems the enquiry could easily have been compromised.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear colleague, I share the same view as that of Mr. Natharao's. Prima facie, it is unlikely it will amount to insubordination as the order from the superior has to be bona fide and reasonable. In not acting on the same, you have the larger interest of the organization in mind. Anyway, it is a matter of details and proving it at the inquiry stage if it was held.
It is not clear whether the inquiry was conducted at all and if yes, whether you were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend your case as per law.
Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not clear whether the inquiry was conducted at all and if yes, whether you were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend your case as per law.
Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@Vinayak Nagarakar, @PVenu1953: Given that the inquiry has found no issue with the health report or health of the machine, the order of the manager seems valid in retrospect. However, the investigation happened after 5 months, so how do we address that? Unless the delay in framing charges and investigation is illegal, those orders will seem validated and bona fide. Or is there a different interpretation?
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
TAKE CHARGE OF YOUR LIFE.ppt
Translated charge sheet shrigopal soni.doc