The Code Section To Be Interpreted:
Code 2.1 – Any employee of The Company shall be guilty of misconduct if they advance or offer to advance any other employee to a supervisory or management position for any reasons other than that employee’s proficiency in the performance of the work that they will supervise and that employee’s proficiency in the delegation and apportioning to other employees of that work such that it is completed properly and within the required time frame.
Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is the son of an influential employee of a client of The Company, and that influential employee has firmly stated that they provide favors in exchange for favors. Employee B is Employee A’s supervisor and observes that Employee A is not the best candidate for another supervisory position that has opened up, but could perform the work with a little extra guidance. Employee B concludes that advancing Employee A is in The Company’s long term best interest despite the code violation, and offers the job to Employee A. Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.1. It might at first appear that Employee B acted reasonably, but, in fact, by submitting to the client’s system of favor trading it only encourages further attempts by that client to extort favors which inevitably leads to the enslavement of The Company to that client’s whim. If The Company ever becomes enslaved as such, then the code of conduct will no longer effectively rule and The Company will have been effectively dissolved and absorbed by the enslaving client. This code is intended to be self- preseving and therefore Employee B’s decision is misconduct because it steers The Company toward The Company’s dissolution.
- Employee A is a talented individual that consistently surpasses coworkers in efficiency and productivity which are indicators of proficiency. Employee B is Employee A’s supervisor and recognizes Employee A’s proficiency. Employee B offers Employee A an addendum to their employment specification to perform some leadership functions on a provisional basis, and Employee A accepts the offer. Employee A demonstrates a high level of proficiency in ordering, organizing, and expediting the work of others. However, Employee A is diagnosed with an illness and is expected to have long periods of unavailability in the near future. Employee B decides to test and advance another employee who will be more available. Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.1 for advancing an employee based upon availability rather than proficiency.
- Employee A is a talented individual that consistently surpasses coworkers in efficiency and productivity which are indicators of proficiency. Employee B is Employee A’s supervisor and recognizes Employee A’s proficiency. Employee B offers Employee A an addendum to their employment specification to perform some leadership functions on a provisional basis, and Employee A accepts the offer. Employee A demonstrates a high level of proficiency in ordering, organizing, and expediting the work of others. However, Employee A has previously stated that they would never want a promotion. Employee B decides to test and advance another employee who is less proficient without extending Employee A an offer. Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.1 for advancing an employee based upon presumed willingness rather than proficiency.
Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is the son of an influential employee of a client of The Company, and that influential employee has firmly stated that they provide favors in exchange for favors. Employee B is Employee A’s supervisor and observes that Employee A is not the best candidate for another supervisory position that has opened up, but could perform the work with a little extra guidance. Employee B concludes that advancing Employee A is not in The Company’s long term best interest and advises other company decision makers that The Company may need to branch out to avoid becoming the captive of the problematic client. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is a talented individual that consistently surpasses coworkers in efficiency and productivity which are indicators of proficiency. Employee B is Employee A’s supervisor and recognizes Employee A’s proficiency. Employee B offers Employee A an addendum to their employment specification to perform some leadership functions on a provisional basis, and Employee A accepts the offer. Employee A demonstrates a high level of proficiency in ordering, organizing, and expediting the work of others. However, Employee A is diagnosed with an illness and is expected to have long periods of unavailability in the near future. Employee B decides to test and advance another employee who will be more available, but finds them to be less proficient. Employee B offer Employee A the advancement and the other Employee a temporary on-call advancement for the times when Employee A is unavailable. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is a talented individual that consistently surpasses coworkers in efficiency and productivity which are indicators of proficiency. Employee B is Employee A’s supervisor and recognizes Employee A’s proficiency. Employee B offers Employee A an addendum to their employment specification to perform some leadership functions on a provisional basis, and Employee A accepts the offer. Employee A demonstrates a high level of proficiency in ordering, organizing, and expediting the work of others. However, Employee A has previously stated that they would never want a promotion. Employee B offers the advancement to Employee A who declines for personal reasons. Employee B extends an open offer to Employee A which contains provisions to protect The Company’s interest during transitions and periods of uncertainty, but otherwise amounts to an open offer for advancement. Employee B then extends to another, less proficient employee, an offer for advancement which contains some provisions to protect The Company’s interests in the event that Employee A decides to accept The Company’s open offer. There is no misconduct.
