The Incident At a smoking break with one of his colleagues from down the hall, an employee was reported to have said, I

[answerhappygod]

The Incident
At a smoking break with one of his colleagues from down the
hall, an employee was reported to have said, I like the way some
employees handle problems with their supervisors -- they eliminate
them. One of these days I'm going to bring in my gun and take care
of my problem. The employee who heard the statement reported it to
his supervisor, who in turn reported it to his supervisor, who
called a member of the workplace violence team.
Response
In the case of a reported threat where there does not appear to
be an imminent danger, the agency's plan called for the employee
relations specialist to conduct an immediate preliminary
investigation and for the team to meet with the supervisor
immediately afterward to look at the available evidence and
strategize a preliminary response.
That afternoon, the Employee Relations specialist interviewed the
employee who heard the threat, that employee's supervisor, the
supervisor of the employee who made the threat, and subsequently
the employee who allegedly made the threat. The employee who made
the threat denied saying any such thing. There were no
witnesses.
The supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the threat
reported that, several months earlier, the same employee had
responded to his casual question about weekend plans by saying, I'm
going to spend the weekend in my basement with my guns practicing
my revenge. At that time, the supervisor had warned the employee
that such talk was unacceptable at work and referred the employee
to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Both supervisors
expressed concern for their staff's safety. Based on comments from
supervisors and the employee who made the threat, the employee
relations specialist recommended that a more thorough investigation
be done.
At the meeting where the employee relations specialist's findings
were discussed, the following people were present: the first-and
second-level supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the
threat, an Associate Director of the agency, the agency security
officer, the employee relations specialist, the EAP counselor, and
an attorney with the General Counsel's Office. One of the team
members recommended that the employee be given a counseling memo
and referred to the Employee Assistance Program. The consensus of
the others, however, based on the employee relations specialist's
oral report, was to recommend to the supervisor that the employee
be placed on excused absence pending an investigation and that he
be escorted from the premises.
The Security officer and the employee's second-level Supervisor
went together to give the alleged threatener a letter that stated,
This is to inform you that effective immediately you will be in a
paid, non-duty status, pending an agency determination regarding
your actions on June 10. You are required to provide a phone number
where you can be reached during working hours. They also took away
his identification badge and office keys, and escorted him to the
building exit.
The team consulted with the agency's Office of Inspector General
which arranged for a criminal investigation to be conducted. The
Criminal Investigator interviewed all of the employee's coworkers
and two other employees who the coworkers indicated had knowledge
of this employee's prior statements against his supervisors. He
then interviewed the alleged threatener.
The criminal investigator checked to see if the employee had a
police record. He did not. The investigator also checked his
workplace to see if he had any weapons at the office or if he had
any written material of a threatening nature. The search of his
workplace found nothing of consequence.
The investigative report showed that the employee told his
coworkers on several occasions that he had no respect for his
supervisor and that he thought that threatening him was an
effective way to solve his problems with him. Signed statements
indicated that he bragged about knowing how to get his way with his
boss.
The prosecutor's office, after receiving the investigative report,
made a determination that it would not prosecute the case and
informed management that they could proceed with administrative
action. The team recommended a proposed removal action since the
evidence showed that the employee was using threats to intimidate
his supervisor.
Resolution
The second-level supervisor proposed a removal action based on a
charge of "threatening a supervisor." A top manager who had not
been directly involved in the case initially insisted that the
agency enter into a settlement agreement that would, among other
things, give the employee a clean Standard Form (SF) 50. However,
based on the particular facts in this case, the team convinced him
that he was not solving any problems by settling the case in this
way and was, in fact, just transferring the problem to another
unsuspecting employer. The top manager finally agreed and the
employee was removed from Federal service.
read the case attatched and summarize types of violence and how it
was dealt with.
What would your agency have done about checking references before
hiring this employee?