Community for Human Resource Management Community for Human Resource Management Think HR, Think CHRM
Home Community CHRM Briefcase Knowledge Center Directories Articles Blogs Business Forms
 
  
  |  You have to become a member before you can post messages, download files and presentations  |  Participate & Contribute through your postings, accumulate points & get promoted within the community  |  To view last week website activities, visit the Archive section
Human Resources


Self Excellence


MBA Students


Website Support


Human Resources » Case Studies
   A small discusion on travelling -need ur inputs
 



Message From: Anu Total Posts: 1 Rank: Beginner
Post Date: 02/08/2006 03:14:44 Points: 5 commu-icon

Hi,

A small case -let me know ur point of view..

X person has travelled abroad on offical purpose to US. After his duration of official work is completed he applies for  1 week leave /vacation in the US. After vacation he joins back office but request the HR not to mark 2 days as leave as he was travelling on those days.

(His support statemment is - as he was on official work the company can grant him grace period for travel, if he was traveling from US to India on that day, the same would have applied )

Let me know your point of view if he should be marked on leave or not for those 2 days

thanks

anu

Message From: melanie Total Posts: 1 Rank: Beginner
Post Date: 02/08/2006 06:07:00 Points: 5 commu-icon

Dear Anu,

In my opinion, first X should have made these issues clear before he left for his travel.

If it was a change of plan after he left, the general rules, policies and procedures should be applied for such scenario. He cannot be granted favouritism because his trip was initially for business.

Best regards,

melanie

 

Message From: CHRM Total Posts: 172 Rank: Learner
Post Date: 02/08/2006 11:31:20 Points: 860 commu-icon

Dear Anu,

Firstly while granting leave to Mr. X, the company should have made it clear about the procedure for leave salary deduction. However, if the company has not specified regarding the same to Mr. X, then his salary for 2 days cannot be deducted since it had to be assumed that it shall take travel time for him to resume normal duties.

Hence, it was the responsibility of the HR department to have made the things clear before the entire process was concluded. Out here, lack of mentioning the true fact may lead to the case being favored by the side of Mr. X.

Regards,

CHRM

"To win...you must stay in the game" - Claude Bristol

Message From: sabi Total Posts: 6 Rank: Beginner
Post Date: 03/08/2006 03:29:21 Points: 30 commu-icon

I agree on the lines of chrm that the company should have cited the leave policy procedure to Mr. X in instances like these to avoid further confusion. Now since the company haven't mentioned the same while granting leave, the leave deduction (2 days) of Mr. X won't be appropriate.

Regards,

sabi

 

Become a Member Free Subscription    Sign Up
Workplace Knowledge Base of Articles
Briefcase (Basic HR Questions)
Vendor Consultants Directory
Management Schools Directory
Community for Discussions
Community Archives for Articles/Topics
Powerpoint Slides & Presentations
Business Forms
Regular Additions of Knowledge based Content
Exhaustive Functional Based Forums
Contribution of Content
Blogs
Poll/Survey Participation and Results
Knowledge Center
Daily Digest Newsletter
Weekly eBulletin
 
 


 
Send Invition Send Invitation
 
 
Send Invition Related Discussion
No Record Found!
 
Send Invition Related Articles
No Record Found!
 
 
 

© Copyright - 2008 to 2009, CHRMGlobal.com, All Rights Reserved. - Terms & Conditions | Privacy

A posting is strictly the opinion/comment of its author and never the official position of CHRMGlobal.com
Designed and Developed by WeTheDevelopers