Difficulty Here Is That Both

¶ … difficulty here is that both the Hospital Administrator (HA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) spoke impulsively. They allowed what should have been a problem-solving session to escalate into an argument. When the HA insisted that solving the nursing shortage was the DON's responsibility, she should have been prepared with some suggestions for his approval, since it was a long-standing problem. She could have then summarized the solutions discussed in a memorandum of summary, which would have created a record that she had authorization to pursue those courses.

That said, the DON was assured that she would be able to return to her old position. The HA knew, or should have known, that the position had been or would shortly be filled. The HA has left both the company and himself at risk for a lawsuit by the former DON (Bliss, 2000). The hospital's problem is that the DON did not quit. She offered a solution to the apparent personality clash between the HA and her: she would return to her old position.

She did not say she wanted to leave the hospital, and she specifically said what position she would accept instead of DON. and, the HA agreed. The hospital, and the HA have one possible protection, and that is by following the procedures established for employee review. The resigning DON has only been in her position for 18 months, so presumably her reviews show areas for growth.

While the HA may have been less than tactful, it has been his policy for some time, and the DON should have come to the meeting prepared to offer some solutions for the problem and not just demand that he fix them. He has delegated the responsibility to her. A formal employee review as a result of this dysfunctional meeting would reflect poorly on the DON and possibly make her dismissal appropriate. It would then not be the HA's fault that her former position was not presently available. Bliss, Wendy. 2000.

"The Wheel of Misfortune." HRMagazine, May. One of the problems Formfit faces is that as a relatively small company, it is unlikely that there is someone below the Assistant Comptroller (AC) who could be trained to fill in until she can return from taking care of her sick child. It is understandable that the AC has pressing family needs, but the company also has pressing needs.

The CEO statement that no one is indispensable will create a legal problem if he tries to prevent the AC from taking the time legally allowed to her, up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave (Tumulty, 2005). Legally, the company cannot terminate the AC, but in reality, if she takes all 18 weeks off, she may find that when she returns she is not seen to be as strong an AC as she was when she left.

She also might find that she needs more than 18 weeks, and so for her own safety she should have a plan that allows her to return to work in a timely way. The company should negotiate several options with the current AC, documenting these meetings so there is a record of them, because the reality is that the AC's son may need care at home for longer than the 18 weeks currently requested by the AC.

Since the medical requirement is that someone be with the child, the mother might be able to hire someone to stay with him during the day. Another option might be for the mother to work half-days after the boy's condition is somewhat stable, hiring someone to stay with him for the rest of the day. Or she might work two or three days a week.

If she shows a willingness to work with the company for a flexible solution, she makes it harder for them to fire her and helps maintain her value as an employee. Tumulty, Brian. 2005. "Federal medical, family leave law goes up for review." Gannett News Service, May 8. The employee's medical situation is a serious one as evidenced that the company doctor has approved a 13-week sick leave.

Whether the employee has wanted to transfer to shipping for several years or not is irrelevant to his current situation except to demonstrate that openings come up in that department rarely. Since the restrictions on his return to work have been set out by the company doctor, there is no question about whether those restrictions must be honored or not (Evangelista-Uhl, 1995). It is clear that the.