In order for a law to be executed, it must be interpreted. In order for any stability to exist in a system, the law must be interpreted with some degree of consistency. In a new business code, the law is written, interpreted, and executed by the same owner of the business. It is up to the owner to ensure that the codes are applied in a consistent and stable way so that they may become a firm foundation rather than a sticky fluid which is sooner flung then built upon. To accomplish this the simplest method seems to be the conveyance of a few examples of correct and incorrect interpretations of the code which serve to delineate the correct interpretation in future applications.
Interpretation
Code 1.1 – Any employee of The Company shall be guilty of misconduct if they demand or beg personal favors or personal property in exchange for doing the work for which they are employed by the company.
Examples of misconduct:
- Employee A is tasked with and aware that ithey are tasked with performing a specialized set of calculations for many projects which are the responsibility of other employees. Employee B is responsible for one such project and requests that Employee A complete the calculations. Employee A complains to Employee B about being busy and offers to get the calaculations done in accordance with Employee B’s schedule if Employee B would write a letter of reference for one of Employee A’s relatives. Employee A is guilty of misconduct in accordance with code 1.1.
- Employee A is expected by their superviser to show up to work in order to meet a weekly production quota. Unfortunately, Employee A’s car breaks down. Other means of conveyance are available but cost money. Employee A calls up their coworker, Employee B and begs Employee B to give them a ride to work claiming that if Employee B does not give the requested ride, then they will be responsible for what happens to the company’s production. Employee B refuses to give the ride, and Employee A attempts to blame Employee B for the lost production. Employee A is guilty of misconduct in accordance with code 1.1 because the requested ride was a personal favor, and the employee later claimed that they did not do their assigned work because they were refused it.
- Employee A is Employee B’s superviser. Employee B has some vacation days saved up and would like to take a few days off, so Employee B asks Employee A for approval for the vacation. There is no business crucial need for Employee B to be present on the requested days, but Employee A says they need Employee B to do something for Employee A before they can approve the request. Employee A tells Employee B to go and mention to Employee C that they have been taking a lot of sick days and to ask why, and then report back with the answer. The task of investigating such matters, like approving vacation time are tasks which are assigned to Employee A and may not be delegated, and Employee A is aware of that. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code 1.1 because the request to investigate Employee C is a personal favor because it is not a part of Employee B’s duties, and the approval of vacation requests is Employee A’s assigned duty.
Examples that are not misconduct:
- Employee A is tasked with and aware that ithey are tasked with performing a specialized set of calculations for many projects which are the responsibility of other employees. Employee B is responsible for one such project and requests that Employee A complete the calculations. Employee A states that based upon a projected workload of other higher priority projects, Employee B’s project’s calculations may not be completed on time without extra effort from Employee A, and Employee A will not be capable of supplying that extra effort due to an illness. Employee B notes these facts and seeks approval for taking the calculations to an outside consultant. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is expected by their superviser to show up to work in order to meet a weekly production quota. Unfortunately, Employee A’s car breaks down. Other means of conveyance are available but cost money. Employee A calls up their coworker, Employee B and asks for a ride. Employee B agrees to provide it. Later, Employee A and Employee B have a falling out and Employee B claims that Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code 1.1 because they begged a personal favor in order to do their work. Employee A states that they would have offered to pay Employee B for the ride or would have taken a taxi to work if Employee B had refused the orginal request. There is no misconduct, but Employee B should be monitored lest they slander Employee A.
- Employee A is Employee B’s superviser. Employee B has some vacation days saved up and would like to take a few days off, so Employee B asks Employee A for approval for the vacation. There is no business crucial need for Employee B to be present on the requested days, but Employee A says they need Employee B to do something for Employee A before they can approve the request. Employee A tells Employee B to go and work on a time sensitive task that is a part of Employee B’s assigned work. Later, Employee A emails Employee B the notice of approved vacation time. There is no misconduct, but Employee A should be warned not to make the assignment of duties appear as if they were favors.
