Friday, September 21, 2012

HBL-A0036 - Scope of Justice it established that:

This example case be used as a foundation for relevant HBL:

K-Mart fires someone for doing an override which they are not authorized to do. This person comes to us with the particulars of his case. He states that they have evidence that the thing he was accused of doing did not happen.

We go down to K-Mart and ask to see the video record of the last day he worked there. The video shows that he did not do what he was accused of.

Our decision: K-Mart and any part of any company that owns K-Mart may never under any circumstances use any video evidence which involves this individual. If they don't care what the truth is, they certainly can't pretend to when it favors them, at least with regards to this person.

They raise the objection that he could then steal from them with impunity. We respond, yes he could. Just as you felt you could fire with impunity. We think yours is the worse of the two events because you chose to do a specifically unjust act. Besides which, that is a null argument. His is only a potential wrongdoing, yours was a real one. You can always feel free to hire an official representative of the law to follow him whenever he's in your store. It's still illegal for him to steal. It's still legal for you to catch him. It is no longer legal for you to use a tool against him which you already proved you will not use justly.

They state that it is lawful for them to refuse to do business with him. Our response: You may, if your business is not in operation at that time. If you exclude him, you must a reason to do so, and getting around your punishment, we're afraid, just won't cut it. Law says that it is the perogative of a business to choose whom to do business with. It also says both that the rights of an individual are vastly more important than that of other legal entities, and that no action may be taken by a company unless they are ready to show it's justification. If you wish to show some justification for firing someone for something they did not do, you knew they did not do, and you refused to care whether they did, we will be happy to review it. We find it typical and distasteful that you would first be unjust, then try to avoid punishment, and then try to mis-use the law to cover your injustice. This goes to show that the punishment against you cannot possibly be too harsh. You must deal with whatever consequences arise. If you hadn't have done something completely unforgivable in the first place, something which any conscientious person or company would never allowed, there would be no need for further measures. We were already easy on you by only letting your obvious non-interest in the truth apply to the person who was harmed instead of across the board.

We further state: It is our recommendation that you fire anyone who could have prevented this from happening, strongly review your entire companies policy in order to prevent this type of blatant injustice in the future, and try to make amends with this individual on his terms. You had your free punch, now it's his time.