Free «Code and Standards Case Study» UK Essay Paper
The due process entails a set of legal requirements based on recognized values and measures set out mostly to guarantee impartiality in each hearing for everyone indicted. It ensures that all suspects are notified of the hearing and have a chance to exonerate themselves. The procedure also supports a lawful guidance of the defendant. The following paper analyzes the applicability of due process in the case when the employer terminates the employment due to the failed corrective program after a verbal warning. The essay further offers the rationale for the organization in providing extra training to the employee. Alternative solutions regarding the case are also explored in detail.
A worker who makes an error by providing incorrect records and fails to take remedial measures is liable to the punishment due to carelessness. However, based on due process, the employer initially did not act in a proper way. Even though the employer gave a verbal warning regarding the issue and took measures to improve worker’s performance, the manager did not follow the correct procedure. The employer was supposed to follow the exact corrective procedure. Initially, he had to file the complaint the worker's performance and inform senior management. A panel had to be instituted to evaluate employee's archives, strategies, and task dealings. Then, a submission session should have been initiated, after which the panel would inflict sentence or dismiss the claim.
Regarding the issue at hand, the worker had a legal privilege to contest the dissolution of service. Due process guarantees that employees should be given a fair trial where they can have a civil liberty to be heard and deny concerns brought against them before the manager dismisses them. Based on due process, the worker had the freedom of contesting his dismissal in this case. The worker had the right to be updated on the details why the punitive action had been taken. In this scenario, the employer did not notify the employee of the motives as to why it was essential to discharge him. Despite warning the worker regarding previous failures, the manager did not update the employee on the details and just dismissed him. Thus, it might have occurred that the employee was enduring some particular personal stress that might have facilitated this decision (Larson & Elliott, 2010, p. 155).
Therefore, discharging the worker without permitting him to present his point of view and contest the dissolution was unfair. Every worker has a right to impartial due process when being dismissed. Regarding the issue under question, the worker only made mistakes in documenting a patient’s chart. Though it is inappropriate in the health care setting, the punitive action was not suitable. A failure to conform to the remedial plan instituted might have been facilitated by other factors which, if put into consideration, would have acquitted the employee.
Dismissing the worker for making mistakes while recording the register was prejudiced. Based on due process, the worker had the freedom to contest the dismissal. For such incidences that result in an employee's service being terminated, due process requires that workers should hire a lawyer at their cost. The employee further has the right to reserve the counsel throughout the remedial course, including preliminary inquiry through post investigation meetings (Harding & Connolly, 2012). In these circumstances, the employer failed to offer the victim the opportunity to appreciate the stated right. Therefore, the employee had every reason to contest the dismissal.
Based on the due procedure, it is evident that though the worker made a mistake and failed to conform to the requirements, the employer should have taken other actions rather than dismissing the worker. In particular, the employer could have initiated another training on the proper method of documenting a patient’s chart because the worker made a mistake due to his incompetence. The manager should have placed the worker on another corrective action plan. The workplace rehabilitation procedure can be chosen for personnel in the health care sector, who execute ineffectively and make errors, as a substitute for or in addition to licensure activities by the panel. According to Harding and Connolly (2012), the employer has an important part to play in the remediation of trained personnel. Commonly, it involves the manager assessment, advice, and tutoring that emphasizes on the superiority enhancement rather than retribution. Although self-valuation is usually a worker's obligation, the employer has a dynamic character to evaluate the capability of the staff regularly. In these circumstances, the employer could have used remediation procedure to point out insufficiencies and subject the employee to another training to conform to the set ethics.
Limited Time offer!
Get 19% OFF
The manager can also achieve the remediation through virtual learning, employee monitoring, diagram reviews, and conduct appraisals. Furthermore, in such cases, the employer can commence a non-retributive, volunteer, and private program, the suitability of which the panel can define after the assessment of worker's mistakes. Though most recommendations come from administrators, some originate from self-recommendation. When instituted, the program can be used not only to improve the performance of the staff but also to avert prospective difficulties and offer profound scrutiny of the matters involved with working faults or insufficiencies. The employer and the panel can work jointly on the remediation procedure to advance the practice (Harding & Connolly, 2012).
The employer should offer more training because the rule-bending behavior of the employee may be facilitated by various factors. Particular environmental and personal factors may be the cause the problem. Individual factors like time, workload, personal needs, and disagreement with the rules have a facilitating impact on the rule-bending behavior (Collins, 2012, p. 16). At times, the employer and the worker can institute certain measures to improve the performance. The employer can teach the employee working practice and morals and collaborate with a certified therapist with whom the worker will have the consumer-provider freedom to preserve discretion (Larson & Elliott, 2010, p. 157). The employee can also ensure that the worker actively participates in the rehabilitation procedure. Furthermore, the manager, in this case, can give the victim mental support. The support is vital because the dissolution of a service adversely affects workers’ confidence aand determination because the employer has doubted their reliability.
In addition, the employer should have filed the complaint, including writing a verbal caution and retaining a copy in workforce files. The employer should have offered the worker a dissolution warning. The notification should have been straight and brief. Where appropriate, the employer should have presented the employee with a statement in the text regarding advantage extension privileges. Most liberties prolong for several months after dissolution.
Let’s earn with us!
Get 10% from your friends orders!
It may be beneficial to seek a cessation settlement with the leaving worker (Harding & Connolly, 2012). Such a contract where both the employer and the employee can make concessions could help avoid prospective proceedings. Since equal sides may be asked to yield privileges, it is obligatory that statutory guidance is pursued by both the employer and the worker. In this situation, other than dismissing the worker, the employer could have suspended him. The employment would have been terminated due to grave violations only after the detailed evaluation and all counteractive measures taken. Typically, before the suspension, the workers receive a written warning and make slight or no determination to improve their performance. Regarding the due process, if the employer had taken more remedial before dismissing the worker, he could have stated that he made everything possible to avoid dissolution. In case of the suspension, the manager would have left no doubt that he had terminated the employment because of his disappointment that the worker had not changed his behavior and had not improved the performance. Moreover, in such a scenario, the worker would have come into a joint negotiating settlement that would amend the dissolution procedure. While not mandatory, collective negotiating contracts analyze the rationalization of the system of the punishment and discharge of employees. In most cases, dissolutions are only permissible for "fair reason," only after continued correction has been practiced. In the given circumstances, the worker would have embraced a rule restraining dissolutions to, for instance, "for fair reason," if the strategy is recognized and banked on upon by the worker (Harding & Connolly, 2012). The move would have changed and constrained the employer capability to discharge the worker. The employee, on the other hand, would have attempted to improve skills of documenting the patient’s chart. If private factors were the cause, the employee could have taken the issue personally by the employer and found a solution.
In conclusion, it is evident that due process is instrumental in protecting the rights of employees in any circumstances. Dissolution of service without the proper procedure can result in the manager facing a prospective litigation whereby such moves can be contested. Besides, the due process serves as a reminder to employers that they cannot dismiss their employees without adhering to the recommended process. The termination of employment is a severe issue and may result in many problems in the future. Thus, employers are advised to adopt a rather non-punitive measure like the suspension to solve problems in the workplace. Dissolution of service should only take place after all corrective actions available have been exhausted.
Want to know what your projected final grades might look like?
Check out our easy to use grade calculator! It can help you solve this question.Calculate now