Can Termination for Gross Misconduct Be Disputed

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Michigan

Over 40 years old. 14 years working for large and powerful pharmaceutical corporation.
I was terminated earlier this week. What should have been considered simple corrections in paperwork was elevated to the highest quality levels, on purpose, by a new supervisor who successfully ousted me despite my good record and otherwise. There was no written/final warning and the HR representative plainly stated that was something they did not have to do. This was given the term "gross misconduct" with a bonus of "Falsification of documents" and thus, no severance needs to be granted. Previously, I was expecting an "exceeds expectations" this year due to my participation from the year prior.

Now, after a lot of reading this forum and elsewhere, I get it. At-will employment = I am terminated. I will be applying for Unemployment come Monday.

I don't believe that I have committed any gross misconduct and certainly did not falsify documents intentionally. Is there any recourse for disputing this terminology? I want to make certain that I am doing everything I can to protect myself from future ramifications regarding my integrity.

I also just want to make sure I'm doing the right things. I signed nothing in the termination session (not asked to)and do not know if there will be any attempts to make me sign anything yet. I do not intend to sign anything with them. If I am asked to come in, is there a way to simply have representation while I am there?

I have considered writing letters to pertinent members in the company about the issue. I vacillate between this being either a waste of time and effort or that letting them know how I feel about that supervisor's actions might help someone else down the road.

Mostly, I just want to know if I'm missing any opportunities for recourse in this situation and that I'm not hurting myself by NOT doing something I'm missing. I want to move on from this as I've been quite miserable there for some time, but I need to know I'm covering all the bases first.

Thanks

What do you mean "falsification of documents"? Do you have those documents? If you don't, they are rather meaningless to you.

I think the only question is whether the employer's statement of "gross misconduct" disqualifies you from UC benefits.

If it does disqualify you initially, you'll have the opportunity to appeal.

Otherwise, don't bother writing to key people in the company because they will back the new supervisor rather than admit they made a mistake hiring him.

And don't be naïve enough to think that anything HR tells you is going to make a difference. HR works for management.

I don't want you to share everything OP, but could you give us a hint at what they're talking about?

(My background is clinical research/big pharma.)

If you are asking whether there is a law or a process you can invoke that will force your employer to restate your termination, there is not. You may ask. However, whether they agree or not is up to them. There is nothing you can do that will require them to do so.

Appreciate the quick replies!

Adjuster Jack: Thank you for your reply. I am expecting my UC benefits to be honored as there have been similar issues with people in the past that were able to collect. If not, I will certainly appeal. Regarding the letters, I agree with what you say. The separation between management and workers has always been large and I doubt anything positive would come from that either.
And yes, it's blatantly obvious to all of us there where the HR department stands and I find that to be a terrible shame as it goes against what the idea behind it stands for. There was no mediation.

Dogmatique: Thank you for responding. The issue was forgetting to fill in areas of paperwork during a run when I had not been on that area for over 8 months. What should have and always has been the method is flagging the paperwork for my correction upon coming in the following day, especially since that order had not even finished running yet. After the initial incident, I unfortunately had a similar event two days later when one of the pages was not with the other ones that I signed. I was sure I was being careful. I did everything as expected. In both these instances, another employee ran to the supervisor to show him my error even though after the initial incident he knew that was not the procedure. The "falsification" was declared in the termination session by producing the corrected page I had filled out and backdated to the previous day when I did the expected work, however, without a footnote. This document was labeled as "copy" Again, this is something that should have been flagged for correction. There was another copy of the same document that did not have my signature on it with the correction that was supposedly the original. I still do not understand what happened there exactly and I suspect something on the shady side was done. I do not have the documents. The termination session was very quick and brutal and I had no say. I hesitate to give further detail as I'm already concerned about identification with what I've said.

cbg: Thanks for the reply. It's been very frustrating to discover how little recourse we have as employees in an at-will corporation and I will be thinking twice before subjecting my time to any non-union employer in the future.

Having said that, I am well aware of Jack's prejudice against HR, but may I present a different view?

The average HR professional, or department, does not have the power that many people think they have. It is rarely, if ever, the decision of HR who to hire or fire, despite the fact that often the hiring letter or termination papers go out over their signature. HR often has the delightful task of advising management as to the wisdom or even the legality of a hiring or firing or discipline decision, only to see management completely ignore them. HR is not, as a rule, "for" either employees or management, but get to walk the line of trying to pacify both without having the actual power to make the final decisions.

If Jack would like to spend a day in HR, preferably either Benefits or Employee Relations, I guarantee that his attitude would change.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Having said that, I am well aware of Jack's prejudice against HR, but may I present a different view?

The average HR professional, or department, does not have the power that many people think they have. It is rarely, if ever, the decision of HR who to hire or fire, despite the fact that often the hiring letter or termination papers go out over their signature. HR often has the delightful task of advising management as to the wisdom or even the legality of a hiring or firing or discipline decision, only to see management completely ignore them. HR is not, as a rule, "for" either employees or management, but get to walk the line of trying to pacify both without having the actual power to make the final decisions.

---

That's my point. HR people have no power. They are as much at the mercy of the bosses as any other employee. Regardless of how fine the line is, when push comes to shove, they do what the bosses tell them to.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

That's my point. HR people have no power. They are as much at the mercy of the bosses as any other employee. Regardless of how fine the line is, when push comes to shove, they do what the bosses tell them to.

---

And they do that because they really don't ultimately have any other choice.

Quote:

---

Quoting another

---

Appreciate the quick replies!

Adjuster Jack: Thank you for your reply. I am expecting my UC benefits to be honored as there have been similar issues with people in the past that were able to collect. If not, I will certainly appeal. Regarding the letters, I agree with what you say. The separation between management and workers has always been large and I doubt anything positive would come from that either.
And yes, it's blatantly obvious to all of us there where the HR department stands and I find that to be a terrible shame as it goes against what the idea behind it stands for. There was no mediation.

Dogmatique: Thank you for responding. The issue was forgetting to fill in areas of paperwork during a run when I had not been on that area for over 8 months. What should have and always has been the method is flagging the paperwork for my correction upon coming in the following day, especially since that order had not even finished running yet. After the initial incident, I unfortunately had a similar event two days later when one of the pages was not with the other ones that I signed. I was sure I was being careful. I did everything as expected. In both these instances, another employee ran to the supervisor to show him my error even though after the initial incident he knew that was not the procedure. The "falsification" was declared in the termination session by producing the corrected page I had filled out and backdated to the previous day when I did the expected work, however, without a footnote. This document was labeled as "copy" Again, this is something that should have been flagged for correction. There was another copy of the same document that did not have my signature on it with the correction that was supposedly the original. I still do not understand what happened there exactly and I suspect something on the shady side was done. I do not have the documents. The termination session was very quick and brutal and I had no say. I hesitate to give further detail as I'm already concerned about identification with what I've said.

cbg: Thanks for the reply. It's been very frustrating to discover how little recourse we have as employees in an at-will corporation and I will be thinking twice before subjecting my time to any non-union employer in the future.

---

I can see why the employer called it "gross misconduct". I can also see though, where it may not be. Serious errors (and that would be the case here, generally) can create major problems for the employer. It's not just that mistakes were made - it's more that in this particular industry, even simple mistakes can lead to serious consequences.

Not always, Jack. There are some (I am one of them and I know others) who have put their job on the line when the employer is doing something illegal. But when it's legal, just not smart, well, HR folk have bills to pay too. What would you have us do?