Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I am thinking they had other issues with this woman, and this was the only "legit" thing thay could hang her on. We had a guy once, who had a doctor's note for everything, he was a jerk, they could not fire him on anything...but the policy manual, which he signed when hired, that stated all internet activity would be work related. Slam dunk. He had browsed tons of websites that were not related to work, and there was verification of that.
Lesson learned, read that small print in the employee handbook.
She was fired for refusing to follow instruction given by her superior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
A person has the right to do whatever they want... sure... However, if your employer tells you to leave, their private property, you don't have the right to stay.
My husband would argue that the employer was interfering with the employee's lunch break by giving orders while the employee was off the clock. In essence, giving orders while an employee is on break is making the employee perform work while on break, regardless of what those orders are. So the employee was within her right to refuse to move. She was on her break after all.
My husband would argue that the employer was interfering with the employee's lunch break by giving orders while the employee was off the clock. In essence, giving orders while an employee is on break is making the employee perform work while on break, regardless of what those orders are. So the employee was within her right to refuse to move. She was on her break after all. The courts disagree. She won her unemployment.
I'm in total agreement. The employer WAS interfering with her lunch break and she was within her right to refuse.
Glad she won her unemployment. GOOD !
Some of these employers have some nerve. They think that just because it's "their market" and the current economic conditions unjustly being in their favor that they have unlimited power over the employees. Wrong again. Nobody has unlimited power over anybody else, especially here where we have an overabundance of lawyers. There are free lawyers who are "hungry" and will take any case; Legal Aid and other non profit legal groups that help people.
Some of these employers act like dictators in an imaginary land.
I understand the law and company policy -- but, in this case, she had clocked out for lunch. So isnt it her business what she does on her own time?
Sure -- as long as she doesn't work. The law says that if you work when you're officially off the clock and your employer knows or has reason to know it (which they did, since she was sitting right there), they have to pay you for it.
It's the law here. No working off the clock. In an old job if we didn't take our breaks & lunch breaks we would be terminated, at hire we had to sign a document that was just for the policy.
I understand the law and company policy -- but, in this case, she had clocked out for lunch. So isnt it her business what she does on her own time?
Non-exempt aka hourly employees are required to be paid for every single minute that they work by law unless they are not covered by FLSA (only a few industries are exempt from this law).
So it is the company's business if she is working on her personal time because they can be held liable for her work.
It's the law here. No working off the clock. In an old job if we didn't take our breaks & lunch breaks we would be terminated, at hire we had to sign a document that was just for the policy.
It is a federal law.
The irony here is that people turn this against their employers all the time and the employer has no leg to stand on when the employee was working on their lunch break.
It is one reason why many groups in my company do not allow hourly employees to have laptops. Aka they could take the laptop home, work on their off time, and later state that they were working and thus entitled to overtime even if they were not allowed.
So to combat it-- hourly employees (in most cases) are not allowed laptops or remote access (VPN) into their work computers.
My husband would argue that the employer was interfering with the employee's lunch break by giving orders while the employee was off the clock. In essence, giving orders while an employee is on break is making the employee perform work while on break, regardless of what those orders are. So the employee was within her right to refuse to move. She was on her break after all.
The courts disagree. She won her unemployment.
Federal law trumps. I hope the company appeals. Hourly worker working off the clock is reason to get fired.
does common sense have no play in this? One manager asked her to do the work during her lunch time (as I remember the article) while another one fired her for doing the work. I would think she showed herself to be an extremely dedicated employee to give up her personal lunch break to finish an assignment.
And she had been a 10+ year employee so if they had been unhappy with her they surely had plenty of time to deal with it. Do you know how rare it is to get a clerical employee ( or any kind of employee) to stay with one company for more than 10 years? I doubt she was making a lot of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GOOD ! 
