[u][b]Situation[/b][/u]: New random drug program catches an employee on the first random. Upper management feels policy is too harsh for this employee, and having him test positive is "damned inconvienent" and disruptive to day-to-day business. Some in upper management want to "water down" the policy. Senior management feels that the policy is harming this employee's livelihood and career.
I am a "sometimes" advisor to upper management on HR-related issues. On this issue I am directly involved because I'm trying to enlighten upper management to the risks of not following their own policy, and the risks of making case-by-case exceptions to it. One senior manager supports my position; one opposes it, and the CEO/owner is most influenced by my opponent, and sees the issue only from the hardship imposed on the "positive" employee.
Our drug program consultant agrees with me, but the CEO will not return their calls to discuss it. The company's outside attorney agrees with me. I have not passed this information up because of the refusal of the CEO to return calls to our drug program consultant.
Catch-22: If I continue to push the CEO/owner he is going to get angry that I am interferring with him operating the company as he sees fit, which is the position of my opponent on this issue. (P.S. - my opponent is my boss).
I feel I have an ethical responsibility to get all the issues out in the open so the executives can make an informed decision. Once I do this should I disengage and let them make decisions that significantly increases the liability to the company?