Worker's Comp - retaliation
catherinetnc
79 Posts
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-13-05 AT 01:21PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I posted about the same situation in the thread "worker's comp confidentiality." The remedy that the w/c lawyer suggested was making employee pay for half of the mediation (that was the written consideration for his silence)- so, by telling others his award, he forfeited his right not to pay any mediation fee. Settled.
During the w/c mediation it was revealed that employee constantly works overtime. He was working 50 + hours a week. They were basing their awards for possible "retirement" on those figures. The HR manager and I were shocked that he worked so much overtime as was the operations manager. The supervisor indicated that the employee consistently/constantly "begged" to work overtime. As in any business, we try to avoid overtime - we have been trying to cut costs all around. Unfortunately, when the supervisor was told (by operations manager) he needed to discontinue overtime with that employee, he said to the employee: "Because you filed a worker's comp claim against us, and because you said that we demanded that you work overtime, we will no longer let you work overtime."
OK. I almost fell out of my chair when the supervisor told me he used these words to the employee. I explained to the supervisor the reason the company didn't want him to work overtime was because we generally discourage overtime, and because (internally) we didn't need for w/c awards to be based on his milked overtime wages.
How he came up with "because you said the company demanded overtime" and "because you filed a worker's comp claim" I don't know!
Any ideas how to remedy the situation before it gets further out of hand? The supervisor told me he actually needed the employee to work overtime today - I said to let the employee work overtime if he needs him too.
I'm waiting to be slammed. Just a note - we pay all non-exempts overtime whether it is approved or not.
During the w/c mediation it was revealed that employee constantly works overtime. He was working 50 + hours a week. They were basing their awards for possible "retirement" on those figures. The HR manager and I were shocked that he worked so much overtime as was the operations manager. The supervisor indicated that the employee consistently/constantly "begged" to work overtime. As in any business, we try to avoid overtime - we have been trying to cut costs all around. Unfortunately, when the supervisor was told (by operations manager) he needed to discontinue overtime with that employee, he said to the employee: "Because you filed a worker's comp claim against us, and because you said that we demanded that you work overtime, we will no longer let you work overtime."
OK. I almost fell out of my chair when the supervisor told me he used these words to the employee. I explained to the supervisor the reason the company didn't want him to work overtime was because we generally discourage overtime, and because (internally) we didn't need for w/c awards to be based on his milked overtime wages.
How he came up with "because you said the company demanded overtime" and "because you filed a worker's comp claim" I don't know!
Any ideas how to remedy the situation before it gets further out of hand? The supervisor told me he actually needed the employee to work overtime today - I said to let the employee work overtime if he needs him too.
I'm waiting to be slammed. Just a note - we pay all non-exempts overtime whether it is approved or not.
Comments
My $0.02 worth,
DJ The Balloonman
I also note you made this comment to the supervisor, "I explained to the supervisor the reason the company didn't want him to work overtime was because we generally discourage overtime, and because (internally) we didn't need for w/c awards to be based on his milked overtime wages." If that reasoning was provided to a supervisor, frankly he was telling the truth when he repeated it (out of context) to the employee. So I'm not sure which 'sin' is worse...providing that explanation to a supervisor or having him repeat his understanding of it.
The operations manager (who used to be in HR) gave him explanations - I'll have to find out what explanations he gave supervisor. (I am working on that.)
Whatever he told supervisor, it seems this particular supervisor should have been savvy enough to treat the situation delicately and filter the info. But, I guess I expect too much.
And,if the supervisor was going to handle this indelicately, I would have rather he said "because the company is concerned that your overtime would be considered in a worker's comp award" - not, "because you filed a workers' comp claim."
You're right, it is spilled milk. You're right, we all make mistakes. Hopefully I am learning from mine and everybody else's.
Thanks for your input.
I learned a long time ago that I should not try to predict behaviors and actions of others based on what I would like to think they might do. Got me in trouble every time. And, if the supervisor had told me, the comp kid, "because the company is concerned that your overtime would be considered in a workers' comp award", I would translate that as, "Hmmmm, they're shafting me out of overtime because I filed a comp claim." And then I'd file the same charge. I would rather have him tell the guy, "The company is trying its best to cut down overtime to a bare minimum in each case where we can", or "because I said so." If you're not a union shop, "because I said so" often works.
(Dang! Two edits?)
What I am saying is that I told the supervisor the reasoning after he had told the guy the statements in question. Maybe I should not have said that to the supervisor, but the damage with the employee had already been done.
In fact, the operations manager said he told the supervisor to tell him we were concerned about his health so we were cutting back overtime. I guess that could translate into "because you filed a worker's comp claim."
I like "because I said so." It sometimes works with my kids, too. Lesson noted - the less said, the better.