Think HR Think CHRM
Tuesday - 15 Oct 2019 on LinkedIn
Username : Password: Forgot Password?
A small discusion on travelling -need ur inputs
Human Resources » Case Studies

Chrm Message From: Anu Total Posts: 1 Join Date: 30/03/2006
Rank: Beginner Post Date: 02/08/2006 03:14:44 Points: 5 Location: India


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



Chrm Message From: melanie Total Posts: 1 Join Date: 30/03/2006  
Rank: Beginner Post Date: 02/08/2006 06:07:00 Points: 5 Location: India

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,



Chrm Message From: CHRM Total Posts: 209 Join Date: 30/03/2006  
Rank: Coach Post Date: 02/08/2006 11:31:20 Points: 1045 Location: India

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.



"To must stay in the game" - Claude Bristol

Chrm Message From: sabi Total Posts: 9 Join Date: 30/03/2006  
Rank: Beginner Post Date: 03/08/2006 03:29:21 Points: 45 Location: India

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.



Chrm Message From: Talochka Total Posts: 2 Join Date: 30/03/2006  
Rank: Beginner Post Date: 07/11/2009 07:25:50 Points: 10 Location: India
I support melamie, on this - person has to obtain an approval for these days to be marked, prior his travel. HR cannot be responsible for persons plans, when he is already away and all documentation is actually filed and subbmited.

1 2 3 4 Next