The purpose of this correspondence is to place a formal protest regarding the decision to reinstate the regular employment of Johan in the Corporate Lab. I have nothing but the greatest respect for you, your position, and your ultimate decision with regards to this matter. The consequences are already far reaching and long lasting no matter the outcome. But I can not sit by idle and allow this issue to continue until I have said my peace.

I myself must be held accountable for some of the fault. There were things I could have done that MAY have prevented the situation from escalating to its current level. You have the findings of the investigation conducted by human resources and I will not waste your time re-entreating old facts. But I do want to bring to your attention some issues that may not have been brought to light. I’m sure that you have my statement on the issue; Chronology of Events: The Termination of Johan . This statement sums up my point of view up until the Monday after Mr. Johan was terminated. Since that time I have learned (or come to realize) several other issues relevant to the incident.

The issue, to summarize, seems to be that e

2. I Personally witnessed Mr. Johan harassing another employee (by hiding jobs that another employee was working on)

5. In Mr. B’s HR interview concerning the matter, every time Mr. B brought up an issue with regards to Johan, it was considered irrelevant or “hearsay.” Yet anytime anyone else said anything that was negative to Mr. B it was apparently taken as fact (hearsay or not). All of this was “he said she said”, but when it was Mr. B who made the claims, it was hearsay. This was my Supervisor. One of the ONLY people I’ve had that would make any personal sacrifice to make it all work, regardless of pay, title, or politics. If they (HR) do not trust his word, they do not trust mine, for when he speaks to his crew he speaks for me, and I applaud his efforts. I find it odd that the only person to be interviewed and that came to me with concerns that the interview was “one sided” and negative was Mr. B. I know Mr B. has employees working for him that respect and admire him, and from what I can see these are the people who WORK, willingly. I only wish there was a transcript of this interview as it is obvious in my opinion that HR had made its decision on the issue before Mr. Johan left HR the day he was terminated.

7. Human Resources notified me the same day that I terminated Mr. Johan that they had informed him (Mr. Johan) that he would be placed on “paid administrative leave pending an investigation” BEFORE ANY consultations with myself or anyone else involved. This clearly gives the terminated employee a “green light” to go for blood as he’s got absolutely nothing to lose. Why wouldn’t he lie? He would be stupid not to. He (Mr.Johan ) has an axe to grind against his supervisor and HR provided the perfect vehicle for him to do it. Further more, by HR validating Mr. Johan’s complaints; they will put all management on staff on notice that if you hurt anyone’s feelings by asking them to do their job you risk your own (job). This is management upside down, or more simply put , chaos.

1. Mr. Johan was terminated for destroying company property and that only. He was previously given two verbal warnings on the matter. Yet his behavior persisted.

very one involved (including HR after their prolonged investigation) is of the opinion that Mr. Johan is NOT some one with who

Some topics in this essay:
Human Resources, Materials Management, B’s HR, Corporate Lab, Termination Johan, HR B’s, Holdings CFO, human resources, Financial Officer, , corporate lab, day terminated, wrongful termination, employment johan, doing job, johan terminated, stay task,