Question for the Brain Trust - Human Resources Related

[Tidybuoy]

Once again, I am researching some rules related to Human Resources because my HR Manager is an idiot and constantly quotes things that are not true.

Situation:
I have a guy that works for me, he is about 68 yrs old and has just retired as of 01/31/2021. He is the purchasing manager for the company and he has a part time assistant.

I promoted the assistant to take over all of his duties. However, he previously split his time with another department (Customer Service). He is severely under utilized by CS and frequently tells me he has nothing to do over there. He likes the purchasing side of his job.

I promoted him without going thru HR as we just increased his responsibilities and I got him a bump in his pay. I do not report to HR, I am the CFO and I get to do things....

Our HR Mgr. has been working from home since Covid started and is rarely available other than a phone call - she's in the office a couple of days a week. When she was here this week, I let her know of the changes we have made.

HR Manager is telling me that I have to post the job - it's California Law. However, I could site at least 20 times when people have ben moved within the plant and nothing was ever posted. My position on this is that it should be applied consistently. In this case, I simply added responsibility to someone who was already doing part of the job. Quite frankly, I'm gonna do what I want - even if I have to post the position as this guy is the one I want to do the work.

Any thoughts?

[oldE]

Go ahead and post the job. You already have an ideal candidate on hand.

Best
Les

[LWJ]

1) follow the law. I don't know about CA. Yuck
2) Be consistent.
3) Cross the t's. Dot the I's. And hire your guy.
4) Start search for new HR.

[masraum]

I don't know the technicalities, but I have heard in certain times and places that jobs have to be posted, even if they have a candidate in mind to fill the job. THey'll often interview several folks. I don't know if it's actually a legal requirement or if the folks doing that hiring just wanted to make sure there wasn't someone better. Maybe it is a legal requirement, but in certain circumstances, the requirement can be side-stepped because the change can be considered lateral. I'm just thinking out loud here.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by oldE

Go ahead and post the job. You already have an ideal candidate on hand.

Originally Posted by LWJ

1) follow the law. I don't know about CA. Yuck
2) Be consistent.
3) Cross the t's. Dot the I's. And hire your guy.
4) Start search for new HR.

HR is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" department but you hired her to do a job, often contrary to your, the CFO, wishes.

See above. Besides #4, you'll have issues, that is what I would do...keep the guy working at what is beneficial to the company and follow State law.

When I worked in very classified programs, our motto was you can only tie the record dealing with classified information, there are no points for creativity. While I don't know Cali law, I bet that axiom applies.

[Icemaster]

From an HR person in California - your HR person is spouting bullshyte. It may be a company policy but not a CA law.

She also advises that you should consider finding a new HR manager.

[RWebb]

just ask your HR Mgr. "which law?"

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Icemaster

From an HR person in California - your HR person is spouting bullshyte. It may be a company policy but not a CA law.

She also advises that you should consider finding a new HR manager.

[Superman]

In my state, the "employment at will" doctrine applies. This means that employers can grant or take away any employment relationship at their whim. A manager can suddenly fire everyone with a moustache and replace them with members of his municipal basketball team. This, in the dark blue People's Republic of Washington State. He/she can only get in trouble by discriminating against a protected group and only an idiot would say this was the reason for their action.

This sounds very much like a turf tussle. I can only imagine how unlikely this sounds to most of you but on rare occasions, it can happen.

The smart play might be to advertise the position and then rehire your pick. In my office, which is a state agency, we have a cumbersome process which surely must come as another surprise to you guys. That said, I participate in appointing the interview panel(s) which then forward the best candidates (usually 3) to me for decision. At that point it is totally my call, regardless of the objective (education, experience, etc) facts. I choose based on what I think is the "best fit" and the matter is closed. It's a PITA that takes a long time but in the end, any appeal to the decision or the process would be fruitless.

[drcoastline]

I don't even want to think about dealing with California. But follow the law anything less will get you in trouble.

[cstreit]

The question is did you move him into a vacated higher role? ...or did you increase his title and give him a raise and additional responsibilities?

I think in the case of the former - yes it should be posted. ...in the latter you just recognized his past performance with title and money.

[Esel Mann]

OP, if I understand you correctly, you are the company CFO, yes? As in executive level, yes?

So why are you asking such a serious question here to people who clearly do not have all the details of the matter?

Why instead are you not having this discussion with someone at the executive level within your company who's responsibility is to oversee the HR department? For example someone director level or higher?

You have two issues here. One is you do not trust your HR manager is competent, two, you have a specific matter that requires attention and the information to arrive at a correct course of action is conflicting. Sounds to me you need to have a talk with someone at your level within the company.....

[jhynesrockmtn]

I dabble in HR so not a pro, but I have a long history of working with and at times butting heads with HR folks. The "it's the law to post jobs" line is BS in a privately held company. This assumes there is no union in place. Even then it wouldn't be "law" but "contract compliance". There are laws that apply to govt. jobs that just don't apply to a privately held company. Did your HR person come from a federal, state or other govt. job?

Lot's of larger and more complex companies generally make it a policy to post positions internally to fight the appearance of favoritism when handling promotions or filling desirable roles. It sounds like your person would get the job even if it was posted given their background and training.

Is this HR person the most senior you have in the Company? How big of a business are we talking about? Are they speaking to a company policy and confusing it with "the law".

[jcommin]

I'm not sure about state law (I work in IL) but any open position at my facility needs to be posted. That is a corporate edict. You may have the best candidate but you run the risk or transparency, fairness, denying opportunity and all that stuff. The postings need to be displayed in the plant and on the Company's web site for 30 days. The HR manager at my facility does not report to the plant manager. He reports to someone at the corporate office. A side note, I have very little use for my HR department: they are never there (work from home Covid) they can't answer questions regarding payroll, benefits, pensions, etc. I get 1-800 numbers. I reported a life changing event and changed my beneficiaries only to learn they didn't change my pension. Boy was I surprised to learn that.

Just remember, HR (I think Sammy said this) protects the company.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Esel Mann

OP, if I understand you correctly, you are the company CFO, yes? As in executive level, yes?

So why are you asking such a serious question here to people who clearly do not have all the details of the matter?

Why instead are you not having this discussion with someone at the executive level within your company who's responsibility is to oversee the HR department? For example someone director level or higher?

You have two issues here. One is you do not trust your HR manager is competent, two, you have a specific matter that requires attention and the information to arrive at a correct course of action is conflicting. Sounds to me you need to have a talk with someone at your level within the company.....

The company must have an attorney somewhere. That's who I would talk to. Then if the HR person is clearly in the wrong, there are grounds for sending her down the road.

If not, firing the HR woman might be a much worse scenario. I wouldn't fook around with someone who knows even a little about employment law.

[flatbutt]

It sounds like you combined some responsibilities. I'd post the job for the minimum amount of time , close the posting and be done with it.

[sammyg2]

Here's the secret to winning at the game of HR:

[Superman]

HRs are usually frustrating. However, maintaining good relationships is important. Advertise the job. After telling the HR person you are aware there is no legal requirement to do so.

[pavulon]

...and be sure the ad says almost nothing about the job itself yet quotes every obscure and meaningless detail about the town and company.