Employee two takes an additional 5 minute brake to smoke
Employee one takes as many brakes as he/she wishes to smoke

A supervisor from another department gives a verbal warning to employee two for taking the extra 5 minute brake. Claiming he has non-exempt hourly employees that are smokers and he does not wish to give them extra brakes.

You are the HR Manager: WHat would you do?

This morning I am dismissing an employee who was smoking in a restricted area (fire hazard). In addition, he violated the company policy that allows tobacco use only in the person’s personal vehicle during scheduled lunch and break times. The kicker is… his manager saw him smoking yet the employee denied it. In our company, integrity is critical. Lying to the manager was the final straw.

I’ve just learned that a supervisor allows her smokers to combine their 30 minutes of breaks and 30 minute lunch and then take 6 ten minute breaks to smoke. Completely against policy. This has stirred up the can of worms with others saying, “If the smokers can do that, why can’t I just do that and go home early, or go outside to watch the sun?” Of course those ten minute (group) breaks really last longer and people still take time away for bathroom, lunch vendor and snack machine visits. This has so divided the team (waring factions would be more accurate) that I am recommending the leaders who allowed this be relieved of their positions. I believe in flexibility but “leaders” really need to think through violating company policy to allow anyone “special privileges.” Now I get to be the bad lady to tell them that has to stop…

Fraud is a criminal act but rarely do they prosecute, even when someone lies so blatantly. Ironically I am dealing with a similar UI issue in which the person lied to obtain benefits. Once it was pointed out by me the benefits ceased and they have indicated the want some of the monies paid back. Had the appeal hearing last week, hoping to have the ruling in the next two weeks.

I think the point is that she lied on her unemployment claim about why she was terminated… end of story.. she lost because she lied.

I do feel that smokers are discriminated against (restaurants, malls, etc… but that is a whole other ball game.)

What troubles me is that they are saying that salaried employee can take smoke breaks. It is not indicated how many, or what could be considered excessive. What if a person is a chain smoker? Is it ok for them to smoke every hour? Based on the information, Kridel only did smoke breaks twice a day. The expectation of a salaried employee is that they work until the job gets done, so in a sense who care if they take 10 smoke breaks in a day because most likely they are expected to work longer hours than an hourly employee? Well, that’s what would make it discriminator because hourly employees smoke too, and it is not far to say some employees can and some can not. My advise would be to allow for employees to do what they want during the couple of breaks that they get. If they do not have the urge to smoke then, oh well, maybe lunch time or after work.

Kridel did however violate the policy by continuing to take her smoke breaks and she did lie about why she was let go. I do think that there were probably more things going on than just that.