Should I resign, or be suspended?

[mahroya]

I have been working for a large hospital corporation for 7 months. Couple of weeks ago, I applied for a position at a different location (transfer). I talked to the recruiter and asked if I should first tell my manager. She left it up to me. Since my manager was out of town, and thinking that it's a transfer within company, I told the HR agent to go ahead with the process. A few days later, when I saw my boss, and asked her if it'd be ok for me to pursuit a closer location to my home, she said policy allows a transfer after a year of employment (HR had told me it's up to boss's discression). Today, boss called me in, and showed me 4 evidences of mistakes that I had made. I did take the balme for one, but all together, I got the impression that I'm being punished for bailing out on her. She has given me the choice of resigning, or being let go.

Please tell me, what's best for me to do?

Thanks in advance.

[Satori77, ADN]

May I ask another question....I'm unclear as far as the wording my boss used: she mentioned 'suspension' (not 'termination'). What is the difference, if any? Thanks.

Suspension means It is temporary and you get to come back (there is suspension with pay and without). Termination means you are let go and unable to return to your job.

[CT Pixie, BSN, RN]

What I find odd is the OP wasn't notified of these 'errors' until AFTER the NM found out the OP wanted to transfer. When exactly did these 'errors' occur? Is it not odd that they are only being brought to light now? If its such an issue that the NM is saying termination or quit, weren't they bad enough 'errors' to be dealt with as they occured and not let them pile up to 4 and only then say someting once the NM caught wind of the pending transer?

I'd fight it.

[ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP]

I'm sorry, but the fault is on you, OP. You knew that you had to wait one year before a transfer, but you decided to pursue the job anyway. Your NM has a right to be ticked off, especially if you are a new grad.

[klone, MSN, RN]

I'm sorry, but the fault is on you, OP. You knew that you had to wait one year before a transfer, but you decided to pursue the job anyway. Your NM has a right to be ticked off, especially if you are a new grad.

There is a huge difference between being annoyed and trying to trump up "errors" in order to justify a possibly unlawful termination because she may have got her feefees hurt. The manager is supposed to be a professional.

HR told her the "one year" policy was not a hard and fast rule when she first inquired about the job, and that it was totally up to the discretion of the manager.

[ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP]

Oh, I'm not excusing the NM either. But, I don't think the OP is seeing the situation through the NM's eyes.

And I'm curious as to know what she was written up for.

There is a huge difference between being annoyed and trying to trump up "errors" in order to justify a possibly unlawful termination because she may have got her feefees hurt. The manager is supposed to be a professional.

HR told her the "one year" policy was not a hard and fast rule when she first inquired about the job, and that it was totally up to the discretion of the manager.

[Hpy_Vly_RNBSN]

I am wondering what the disciplinary process for this hospital is. At many hospitals I worked for there was a system. For each infraction there was a verbal warning then a written warning then a suspension then termination. You could not be given a written warning before you had a verbal warning and so on. I'm wondering if there is a system like this at the OP s facility. If there was she would be able to fight it on those terms.

[mahroya]

I love how you pay attention to details, klone!!!

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

You could not be given a written warning before you had a verbal warning and so on.

I'll bet that if you went back to your employee handbook/code of conduct, you would find a very different reality. Many facilities will classify infractions based on severity, and some of those infractions could very well be automatic termination. Get caught stealing narcotics at my facility, and you won't be getting a verbal or written warning; security will escort you out to your car and watch you leave hospital property.

OP, while your manager may not be playing fair here (we are only getting one side of the story), you are not completely blameless. You didn't have the managerial authority to tell the HR agent to go ahead with the process when your manager was out of town, plus you violated written policy of 1 year before being permitted to transfer. Yes, there is the option of manager discretion, but you didn't give your manager the opportunity to exercise that discretion. I'm with the others- take option C, then learn what you can from this situation.

It's much better in terms of unemployment benefits if you let them fire you.

Nope, termination-for-cause renders one ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if the employer chooses to contest the award of benefits.

Since the new job is within the same company, I'd guess that by resigning your current position, you' be losing the other job, too, since you'd no longer be an internal hire. Likewise, being terminated will probably cost you the new job as well.

If it were me, I'd go have a hart-to-heart with my boss, beg forgiveness, and plead for mercy. You screwed up; the onus is on you to seek to make amends.

Trying to "fight" it out through HR is not likely to work to your benefit and should be a very, very last resort.

However, I would not resign and quietly go into the night, either.

A new grad resigning after 7 months is going to face extreme difficulty finding another job of any sort, especially a decent one.

[blondy2061h, MSN, RN]

Nope termination-for-cause renders one ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if the employer chooses to contest the award of benefits.[/quote']

If they successfully contest it, that is. I know lots of people terminated that get unemployment. No one who resigns does, so either way it's "much better."

[CarryThatWeight, BSN]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but if you are not represented by a union, you are likely an "at-will" employee. This means that either party--employer or employee--may terminate the working relationship at any time without cause. This is lawful. If you are an at-will employee, they don't even need a reason to terminate you. The only way you would win a lawsuit if you were terminated is if you could absolutely prove you were terminated due to something protected under discrimination law (not the legal term, but you know what I mean: a "protected" reason): age, sex, race, etc. If you are an at-will employee, you would have signed something at hire, but there are often so many papers signed at once, people don't realize what they are acknowledging. I would check into this first before you do anything.