You’re the HR manager at your organization and report directly to the president (whose sister died of cancer about six months ago). One afternoon, an employee comes to you with a problem. Her sister (who lives out of state) has been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer and has less than 6 months to live. The employee wants to spend the last few months of her sister’s life with her, to share time and care for her in her final days. The employee has already requested a leave of absence but was advised by an HR representative and her manager that this sort of leave isn’t covered under FMLA. Your department is going into its “busy season,” so her manager in unwilling to grant any other type of leave. She is concerned about how she will support herself while she is staying with her sister. She asks you whether it is possible for the company to call this a layoff and approve of her getting unemployment insurance. Sadly, she knows that her sister won’t live longer than six months, so unemployment insurance benefits would carry her through. After you express your concern and sympathy, which of the following responses would be the best?
Explanation
Answer - A - First, it is important for the employee to understand how the process works, so it is appropriate to share that information with her. No matter how much you feel for her, however, and regardless of any other personal circumstances that might be “pulling at your heart strings,” there are many reasons (ethical, legal, procedural, financial, etc) why you would not falsify a termination code.
Key Takeaway: You don’t need to go into all those reasons with the employee. Although the factual information at the beginning of Option B is correct, there are many reasons why you should not falsify the termination code. As HR, your role is to be a “truth advocate,” not an employee advocate, and in truth the employee wasn’t laid off. Prattling on about policies and procedures at this moment isn’t the best approach and might only serve to reinforce the notion of HR as the “personnel police.”
