Terminix Employee Handbook ##BEST##
DOWNLOAD >>> https://geags.com/2teq3H
In cases of resignation, the employee must submit an official written resignation letter to the immediate supervisor. A notice is expected by the employee consistent with the minimum notice requirement, so the company can arrange alternatives for handling the remaining workload of the position. The resignation letter must be copied and submitted to the Human Resources department.
In cases of involuntary dismissal, the supervisor must submit an employee termination document to the human resources department at the date of separation or before that. Discharge for cause justifies immediate suspension until the necessary documentation for termination has been gathered. In some instances, a termination meeting with the employee, supervisor and a human resources officer may be scheduled.
In cases of discharge without cause, the employer must officially notify the employee of the termination a specified amount of time in advance. When severance pay is appropriate it will be officially stated in writing.
TO OBTAIN A LICENSE: Submit a Commercial Structural Pest Control Business License Application and fee, and show your business has the required insurance by having your insurance company submit the Certificate of Insurance Form. When all is properly completed, your business will be issued a Commercial Structural Pest Control Business License and its employees may perform structural pest control. To avoid additional fees and fines, licenses should be renewed each year by December 1.
For the purposes of this story, Bill and Ted are two of your best general pest control technicians. They work hard and have proven to be loyal employees, each having been hired about three years ago. On a recent Saturday night, Bill and Ted went to a party thrown by a mutual friend. Bill went a little overboard on the beers and shots, and had a king-sized hangover on Sunday. He kept hydrated and took it easy Sunday, and was ready for work on Monday morning.
Truth be told, Pest Management Professional (PMP) began investigating this topic after a PMP in California asked us to look into it based on his experience. A prospective employee called about a job opening and asked point-blank whether the company hired employees who used marijuana. The owner was concerned that the call could lead to attorneys jumping aboard the employee discrimination bandwagon. For the record, the owner invited the caller to come in for an interview regardless, but he failed to show up for the appointment.
In this diversity action, the Plaintiff asserts a cause of action against the Defendant for breach of an employment contract. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated the terms of an \"El Paso Energy D.O.T. Employee Handbook on Drug Abuse and Alcohol Misuse\" in terminating the Plaintiff's employment as a maintenance operations technician after the Plaintiff failed a random drug test. In support of his claim, the Plaintiff asserts that, pursuant to the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in Bobbitt v. The Orchard, Ltd., 603 So. 2d 356 (Miss.1992), the handbook created an obligation on the part of the Defendant to follow its provisions in administering the drug testing program; and the Defendant violated several of the handbook's provisions in terminating the Plaintiff.
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has promulgated regulations governing natural gas pipeline transmissions, and many of the Defendant's employees occupy \"safety-sensitive\" positions that require the employees to participate in the DOT's drug testing program, including being subject to random drug tests. As a maintenance operations technician, the Plaintiff held such a position, and thus was subject to the DOT's drug testing requirements. As part of the DOT program, the Defendant was required to implement and maintain a DOT drug testing policy, and ensure that its safety-sensitive employees met DOT drug testing standards.
In order to implement its DOT drug testing policy, the Defendant contracted with Substance Abuse Management, Inc. (SAMI), a DOT certified entity. SAMI's role was to administer and manage the Defendant's drug testing program, and ensure that drug testing of the Defendant's employees was conducted pursuant to DOT regulations. SAMI in turn contracted with Family Medical Center of Columbus, Mississippi, to collect the Defendant's employee's urine specimens and have those specimens tested for the presence of illegal substances by an independent, DOT-approved laboratory.
One aspect of the DOT drug testing program involves random testing of employees. On October 18, 1999, the Plaintiff was selected for a random drug screen. *651 The Plaintiff proceeded to the Family Medical Center and provided a urine specimen as directed. The Plaintiff's specimen subsequently tested positive for marijuana. After notifying the Plaintiff of the positive result, the Defendant followed the applicable DOT regulations and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. This suit followed.
Mississippi has followed the employment at-will doctrine since 1858. Coleman v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 662 So. 2d 626, 628 (Miss.1995). Where there is either no employment contract or the contract fails to specify the length of the worker's employment, either party may terminate the employment at will. Perry v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 508 So. 2d 1086, 1088 (Miss.1987). This means that the employee is entitled to quit or the employer is entitled to terminate the employee for a good reason, a wrong reason, or no reason at all. Slatery v. Northeast Mississippi Contract Procurement, Inc., 747 So. 2d 257, 259 (Miss.1999).
The Mississippi Supreme Court has, however, carved out two narrow exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine, thereby allowing an at-will employee to sue for wrongful discharge. First, where an employee is terminated because he or she has refused to participate in illegal activity or has reported the illegal activity of his employer to the employer or to anyone else, a suit for wrongful discharge can be brought, despite the at-will status of the employee. McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603, 607 (Miss.1993); Laws v. Aetna Finance Co., 667 F. Supp. 342 (N.D.Miss.1987). Second, when an employer furnishes its employees a handbook or manual that sets forth procedures to be followed in reprimanding, suspending, or discharging its employees, then the employer is obligated to follow its own provisions, even in the absence of a formal *652 employment contract. Bobbitt v. The Orchard, Ltd., 603 So. 2d 356 (Miss.1992); Slatery, 747 So. 2d at 259 (Miss.1999). This Bobbitt exception to the at-will employment doctrine is qualified, however, by the principle that an employer may avoid creating a contract of employment by having its employees sign a disclaimer stating that the employees' continued employment at the firm remains at-will. See Byrd v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, 807 So. 2d 433, 436-37 (Miss.2001) (\"holding that when there is a disclaimer which expressly provides that the employment relationship is at-will, the handbook in question does not create a contractual obligation that overrides the at-will doctrine.\"); Lee v. Golden Triangle Planning & Dev. Dist., Inc., 797 So. 2d 845, 848 (Miss.2001) (same). In fact, the Bobbitt court itself hinted at such an exception to the rule it created by finding the lack of
The Plaintiff argues, however, that a manual entitled \"DOT Employee Handbook on Drug Abuse and Alcohol Abuse,\" upon which the Defendant's logo appears, falls within the Bobbitt exception. The court disagrees. The Plaintiff signed two separate disclaimers, both of which clearly indicated that the parties' relationship was at-will. The Mississippi Supreme Court, in the Bobbitt opinion itself as well as in cases construing Bobbitt, has clearly held that such disclaimers are sufficient to maintain the parties' at-will relationship, despite the fact that the employer distributes handbooks or manuals to its employees. Bobbitt, 603 So. 2d at 361; Byrd, 807 So.2d at 436-37; Lee, 797 So. 2d at 848. In addition, two federal appellate courts have held that state law claims of this type are incompatible with the employment at-will doctrine. Carroll v. Federal Express Corp., 113 F.3d 163 (9th Cir.1997); Graham v. Contract Transp., Inc., 220 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.2000). As such, the court finds that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiff's claims. 153554b96e
https://www.iyfusa.org/group/iyfusa-group/discussion/cb4f6721-217f-4bd9-9b41-cb3a827ccd78