Essay Example on Misconduct in Employment: Section 593 of Labor Law Explained

Section 593 of labor law on misconduct stipulates that "No days of total unemployment shall be deemed to occur after a claimant has lost employment through misconduct in connection with his or her employment until he or she has subsequently worked in employment and earned remuneration at least equal to ten times his or her weekly benefit" (Gerstel et al. 511). Misconduct is an act that destroys and creates mistrust between the working relationship of the employee and the employer (Gerstel et al. 515). Notably, the intermediate consequence of misconduct is dismissal. The paper aims to determine the case of Ms. Jordan whether she was rightfully dismissed due to misconduct and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and whether she was entitled to an unemployment insurance benefit.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Ideally, Ms. Jordan was not involved in any form of misconduct. First, we take into consideration that Ms. Jordan has worked for Metropolitan hospital for 13 years. She had been loyal and honest for all these years without having any form of dishonesty. Therefore, the move to grant Ms. Jordan FMLA leave means that her sons' condition had been ascertained in accordance with the regulations of the act. The son had had Parkinson's disease. These disease affects the central nervous system and may affect the movement of the victim (Gerstel et al. 530). This means that Ms. Jordan had to spend more time with her son. Ideally, it seemed like the condition of her son was worsening that required Ms. Jordan to have more time for her son. Therefore, rearranging and changing of shifts were necessary at this point.

However, at some point, Ms. Jordan did not act wisely. Though her request to change her shift was granted by the assistant nurse manager under the condition that she find a colleague to switch with, regretfully, she did not arrange to inter-switch her shift. However, this act is not worth concluding an act of misconduct considering her years of service to Metropolitan Hospital. Reasons for not making shift arrangements are not disclosed and only known to her. Perhaps the she did not get a co-worker to make the shift and was afraid that her request could not be granted. The incident of August 30th to Cuba raised more concern to the management of Metropolitan, making them summon Ms. Jordan on September 4th to dig deep into the incident.

All stakeholders were involved, including the assistant nurse manager, director, and a union representative. Ms. Jordan explained a piece of brief information that was not satisfactory to believe her. Therefore, the management requested documentation prof on her appointment with the doctor. Following up on the documents, within a short duration, she had already been discharged off her duties. Ideally, enough time was not given for Ms. Jordan to get the medical documents in time. Moreover, he attempts to present her papers to the director was denied. Therefore, enough probe into the matter should have been on the course rather than making a quick conclusion into the matter. Ms. Jordan told the employer that the shed has something to do with her son. Hence the fact that she did not disclose that she had an appointment in Cuba should not be a concern since the appointment still has everything to do with her son.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Ms. Jordan was not engaged in any misconduct or abuse of FMLA law. She reported earlier about her son's condition and disclosing inner issues of the appointment should not have been a significant reason for discharge. Therefore, she is entitled to the insurance benefit of $7,980 since the act of misconduct 'holds no water.'

Work Cited

Gerstel, Naomi, and Katherine McGonagle. "Job leaves and the limits of the Family and Medical Leave Act: The effects of gender, race, and family." Work and Occupations 26.4 Vol. 4 (2017): 510-534. www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla