Donna Moreau was employed for nine
years as a room attendant for the Windjammer Hotel. Her work and attendance
during that period were considered excellent. The hotel was moderately busy
during the week, and then typically filled with tourists on the weekends. In
accordance with a hotel policy requiring two weeks’ notification, Donna
submitted a “day off” request on May 1, for time off on Saturday, May 15, to
attend the 1 P.M. high school graduation ceremony of her only daughter. The
hotel was expected to be extremely short of staff on the weekend of May 15 due
to some staff resignations and terminations, as well as a forecasted sell-out
of guest rooms. Donna’s supervisor, Tara Roach, denied Donna’s request for the
day off, stating the housekeeping department needed her to work that entire
weekend. Donna was visibly upset when the schedule was posted and she learned
that her request had been denied. She confronted Tara and stated, “I will be
attending my daughter’s graduation. I’ve been a single parent to my daughter
for 17 years, and there’s no way I am going to miss that day!” Tara replied
that she was very sorry, but all employee requests for that weekend off had
been denied, and Donna was to report to work as scheduled. On the Saturday of
the graduation, Donna, in accordance with written hotel policy, called in
“sick” four hours before her shift was to begin. The hotel was extremely busy
and, due in part to Donna’s absence, each room attendant who did show up at
work was assigned a heavier than average workload, causing a great deal of
departmental tension. Tara, who was angry at what she saw as willful disregard
for supervisory authority, and recalling the earlier conversation with Donna,
recorded the employee’s call-in as an “unacceptable excuse” and completed a
form stating that Donna had, in fact, quit her job voluntarily by refusing to
work her assigned shift. Tara referred to the portion of the employee manual
that Donna signed when joining the hotel. The manual read, in part: “Employees
shall be considered to have voluntarily quit or abandoned their employment upon
any of the following occurrences; 1. Absence from work for one (1) or more
consecutive days without excuse acceptable to the company 2. Habitual tardiness
3. Failure to report to work within 24 hours of a request to report Donna
returned to work the next day to find that she had been removed from the
schedule. She was also informed that she was no longer an employee of the
hotel. Donna filed for unemployment compensation. In her state, workers who
voluntarily quit their jobs were not typically eligible for unemployment
compensation. Those who are terminated do typically receive the benefit (which
is ultimately paid for by the hotel).
Dimension: Societal Reaction Review
the actions described in the case: 1. What do you think those outside the hospitality
industry would think about Tara’s decision to terminate Donna? 2. Assume that
accurate information regarding this situation were to become well-known in the
local community surrounding this hotel. Would this information likely increase
or decrease the interest of other professional housekeepers in working at the
Windjammer in the future? 3. The concept of “unacceptable excuse” can be
difficult to define. Despite that, define it in terms you believe Donna and
other employees would use. Define the term in a manner that Tara and other
supervisors would likely use.
Dimension: Company Procedure and
Decision Making Review the actions described in the case: 1. What do you think
of the “time off” request system in use at the Windjammer? 2. If you were the hotel’s
general manager, would you support the actions of your housekeeping supervisor?
a. If your answer is “yes,” how would you respond to Donna if she maintains
(accurately) that she has not called in “sick” in the past 15 months, and in
fact has frequently been called in to work on her days off because other
employees called in sick fairly often? b. If your answer is “no,” how would you
respond to Tara if she maintains (accurately) that allowing employees to set
their own schedule in her department would lead to severe difficulties that
would result in poorly cleaned guest rooms and, ultimately, unhappy guests who
were very likely to complain to the general manager or even directly to the
hotel’s owners? In addition, Tara is adamant that if you do not support her
decision making on this issue, her credibility as a departmental supervisor
will be severely diminished. 3. Were Tara’s actions in the best interests of
the hotel? Explain your answer.
Dimension: The Unemployment
Compensation Hearing Assume you were called to an administrative court hearing
to defend the Windjammer’s contention that Donna was not fired, but rather that
she quit (and thus is not eligible for unemployment compensation). Review the
actions described in the case: 1. If you were an Unemployment Compensation
Administrative Hearing Judge in this case, would you initially be more likely
to side with the employee or the hotel? 2. How would you likely answer the
following specific questions asked by the Administrative Hearing Judge? a. Is there
a distributed list of “unacceptable” reasons for calling in sick? Who decides
what is “unacceptable”? b. Have, in the past six months, all employees who
followed the hotel’s policy of calling in sick four hours before their shift
ultimately been documented as “resigned” from their job? c. Assuming the answer
to the above question is “no,” what was the hotel’s basis for treating Donna
differently from: Males in the hotel Those of a different ethnic background
(the hearing officer explains that this is asked simply to ensure that the
hotel is not guilty of a civil rights violation) 3. How important would it be
to be very familiar with the state’s unemployment compensation laws if you
were: a. The person representing the hotel at the administrative hearing? b.
The hotel’s general manager? c. Tara?