40-year employee fired for smoking — too harsh?
December 3, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Here comes the judge, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, That's how they do it in ______
A 40-year employee was caught smoking in his office at a facility that had highly flammable materials on site. Now he’s sacked.
George McGaughie worked for Interfloor Ltd. in Dumfries, Scotland.
He was fired after a human resources assistant reported she’d seen him smoking in his office, according to the Dumfries Standard.
The HR rep had been smoking herself in a designated shelter just steps outside McGaughie’s office.
He denied smoking in his office. At his disciplinary hearing, McGaughie said he’d come in on his day off for a meeting and had been smoking in the shelter when his phone rang.
He said he went to his office to answer the phone, but his cigarette wasn’t lit while he was in his office.
An investigation turned up cigarette ash on the floor around his desk, a plastic cup inside the waste bin with two cigarettes inside and a cup burnt with a cigarette.
After his termination, McGaughie took his case to an employment tribunal and argued that dismissal after 40 years of service for a first offense was too harsh.
The tribunal upheld the firing. Testimony in favor of his firing included details about a fire in 1990 at the facility that had cost the company over one million pounds when a warehouse was destroyed.
Do you think the punishment fit the crime? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Tags: fired, first offense, smoking
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
Based on the facts described in the article, I think the termination was justified. If he’d been there 40 years, he surely was aware of the fire in 1990 and knew the risks of smoking in the facility. Further, the designated smoking area was “just steps outside” his office. If everything is as the article describes it, there was no excuse for his behavior whether he’d been there 40 days or 40 years.
We have a lot of long-term employees in our company, and some of them have behavioral problems like Mr. McGaughie or performance problems and seem to be under the impression that just because of their service, the company has an obligation to keep them on staff without expecting any improvement from them. Yes, long-term service is valuable, but not so much so that it is a free pass to get away with unacceptable behavior.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
anyone smoking in this day and age should be fired for stupidity if for no other reason
December 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
As a California girl, we allow no smoking in any public buildings (including workplaces) or within 15 feet of them. However, an organization with highly flammable materials on site any where should have an absolute NO SMOKING policy. A 40 year employee should certainly have known better. Termination is justified if you ask me.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Smoking inside a workplace is and always has been one of the worst safety violations possible, jeopardizing not only the physical building and contents, but all other employees as well. There should be no opportunity for a 2nd offense. The first one should always result in termination.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
(1) Legally justified – perhaps if the facts are true. No smoking means no smoking. Rules must be followed by all.
(2) Ethical and/or the right thing to do – Well -let’s see. A 40 year employee surely has had to forgive the company many a sin. So perhaps a warning, with a note in his employee file, would have been the human and prudent thing to do first. This action is a little harsh, and certainly less than people first oriented.
(3) Rational – Questionable – If the designated smoking area is within proximity of the office in question, where’s the common sense? Certainly the confined office would be safer than an open smoking area around the flammables.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Regardless of the smoking, he lied at his disciplinary hearing. In any employee handbook, this in and of itself is falsification and is grounds for termination.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Termination was the correct action to take. Before you get your tail feathers ruffled you should know this is coming from a smoker of 28 years. Would it still have been too harsh if he had ignited a fire and burned the place down? What if someone was hurt or killed? Negligence without results is still negligence.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Good job GB. I think you nailed it.
Brooke:
I know we all have it in our handbooks about dishonesty, lying, and falsification. I know we have applied it to omissions on applications or time card entries. However, there is a difference between lying in your day to day activities and lying when being investigated or grilled about your behavior. We all tend to rationalize and may minimize our behavior when in such a position. It’s human nature. Most courts and juries also know the difference, too.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The policy said “No Smoking”. What did the policy say would be done to an offender? IF it said a first time offender would be terminated, case closed.
Issue a policy and stick to it, regardless of length of service, top performer, management, etc.
Consistency and you can not be critized.
P.S. – I have over 30 years in HR.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Wow I agree with John – scarry world.
Time on my hands?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
We recently had a situation in my town where an employee was smoking outside the building & threw their cigarette in a cardboard dumpster. It caught fire & the entire restaurant where he worked next to it burned to the ground w/in 20 minutes.
Yes – employees should be held accountable for not smoking in designated areas.