We are a seasonal company & end up re-hiring about 100+ employees back every Spring. We also have our Spring Orientation before everyone starts back (we go over new & revised policies, changes in the company, etc.). We pay these employees for the time they are at Orientation - usually 1.5 to 2.0 hours. We had an employee re-hired from last year come to our Orientation back in March, but then never showed up for work. One of our current employees ran into him a week or two later and he told her that he found another job so he just didn't come in to work. Then about 2 weeks ago he called his former supervisor (the one who had hired him back) to ask for his job back since the other one didn't work out - she declined his request. Now today he called my boss demanding to know why he wasn't paid for his time at Orientation. I was unaware that he was not paid for it as we use electronic timeclocks and each supervisor was responsible for entering all employees hours for the Orientation whom attended so I assumed he was included in that. Unfortunately he was not. So I am going to pay him for that time, but should we be paying him at his hourly rate from last year or the new rate we offered him to come back this year to work for us? We offered him more money this year expecting that he'd actually work for us. I'm thinking it's probably going to be the higher rate, but I want to be sure. We'd prefer to pay him at his old rate for the 1.5 hours.

Pay what you promised to pay if he returned.  He did, after all, return.  He just didn't stay.  Think of it this way: the question could be restated with the same meaning as, "should the Company pay someone what it said it would pay that person or, because the Company takes a dim view of people who exercise their at-will option to leave employment, should the Company break its word and pay some other lower rate?"

I don't see any upside to giving someone fuel to harm the Company's reputation over a pay differential covering only 1.5 to 2 hours of work.  The downside to breaking the Company's word is a potential wage and hour dispute, probably at the state level.  Would you say, under oath, that the person was offered the higher pay rate but the Company simply did not pay it?  Would you feel comfortable defending the Company's putative right to change pay rates after the hours were worked?

I agree!  I felt that is the best route to pay him the higher rate of pay. The funny thing about this story is that about an hour after I posted my original question the former employee called me back and started complaining about how everyone at the company is so unprofessional, everything we ever "handle" is just so unprofessional, he decided not to come back but because someone who works here talked some lies about him to other people it's not his fault that he didn't come back or call to quit it's the other employee's fault, etc.  Very strange! He went on & on & on about how horrible everyone here is and he doesn't know what we're all doing here, but he wanted to come back & we wouldn't let him.  I'm thinking he is a very confused individual and it's probably best that he did not come back to work here. I did not work with him last year, but the employees who did were not surprised that he never showed up for work and were actually relieved.

 Thanks for the advise! He will be paid for those hours at the higher rate!

Agree on paying the higher rate. Look at it this way...how much difference could it be? I am suspecting less than $10. 

I can just imagine the headache of this person complaining if you paid the lower rate.  Not worth the difference!

I would be thanking my lucky stars that he didn't return!

Now that the payroll issue is resolved, I'd look into the process that allowed this person to get rehired. 

I asked the Supervisor who hired him back that very question & she replied, "It was a momentary lapse in judgement!"  Ha ha! She said she always thought he was a bit "off and odd" but he did his job. From what most employees relayed to me about what they thought of him they described him in one word: CREEPY. I think the supervisor learned a valuable lesson this year!

Thanks again!  

 

One thing I see again and again is supervisors who want to make hiring decisions or disciplinary decisions without reviewing a person's work/disciplinary history first.  It's a bad habit that usually ends up in HR's lap down the road.

Agreed- better yet just pick up the phone and speak to someone in HR about the decision (hiring or firing) before it is made.

 

 

Unfortunately at our company no one likes to do things "by the HR book" - all of the Supervisor's/Manager's like to do things their own way including interviewing & hiring. And then I get stuck picking up the pieces & cleaning up their messes! It's an on-going battle I am stuck fighting. I have to fight them tooth & nail just to get all of the New Hire Paperwork completed & returned to me in a timely manner among many, many other items. I don't get any back-up from the GM's & owner of the company so I'm left fighting an up-hill battle by myself.

 Thanks for everyone's advise! I really appreciate it!