Progressive Discipline
Lola815
225 Posts
I am working on updating our progressive discipline policy. I am a little bit confused about the difference between a warning and a verbal warning. Can anyone help me out? How do you handle each? Some articles I've read say there are four steps to progressive discipline 1. verbal warning 2. written warning 3. suspension 4. termination. and others say there are five steps with a warning being the fist step. Any info would be appreciated.
Comments
I wouldn't scrap verbal warnings. I realize many ees think it is odd to see documentation of a verbal warning - but it really does serve a purpose. We don't always use a formal form to document that. Sometimes it is as informal as an email to document "the discussion" we had on x date. If the situation escalates to a written warning, we then can reference back to the date of the verbal warning easily.
By the way, should it be "verbal" or "oral" warning. These guys used the term "oral" because all warings are "verbal" because both the spoken and written words are "verbal." Webster says: Of, relating to, or associated with words. Of course, the #3 definition is: Expressed or transmitted in speech.
I know, too much time on my hands, but could spur an interesting debate or discussion, whichever you prefer.
Starting with some concepts...
Progressive discipline is supposed to be a positive management approach to address, correct or stop misconduct or poor performance at levels before they become serious and perhaps incorrigible. That doesn't mean that every misconduct or incident of poor performance has to go through progressive discipline. Usually, those acts that go to the suitability for emplyment with the emplyer, or impugn the integrity or trusworthiness of the employee probably can be viewed as requiring immedate termination or perhaps the last formal disciplinary step in the emplyer's "arsenal" short of discharge. Another area where non-progressive discipline can be imposed would be in those incidents of misconduct that the employee reasonably knows or should reasonably should have known is wrong -- I don't think that an employer should have to go through progressive discipline if it catches the employee stealing money from the cash register or attempting to murder his or her supervisor (sometimes this area involves clearly morally or socially unacceptable msconduct) even if it doens't have an explicit policy barring them.
Remember, the intent of progressive discipline is to put the employee on notice, in an effective but not excessive about a problem so that it is corrected or not done again; of course, many times, initial steps of progressive discipline fail or the process of progressive disciplne fails with the emplyee forcing the employer to impose discharge.
Generally, in the entire range of the progressive discipline progress both verbal and written approaches are acceptable (except where there may be aribtration on the propriety of a discipline).
Counseling while not a formal disciplinary step is often viewed as part of progressive discipline because it is usually in response to some issue, problem or wrongdoing with the intent of correction or stoppng the problem before it gets worse. But I have seen some arbitrations look at the counseling level as a disciplinary step. I would be interesting to know what an arbitrator would rule under "Weingarten" if the employee upon demanding union repesentation at a meeting was told by the supervisor, "I need to look into this and if you did it, I'm just going to counsel verbally you but you can't have a representative because it's not discipline."
From my experience, the first formal disciplinary measure is warning for most employers. Who is responsible for issuing that may vary, but it is usually the immediate supervisor.
I think that disciplinary steps should be in writing, so I'm not in favor that there be something called "verbal warning." But it's not fatal if you have something like that -- the problem is somewhere along the line, in order to establish that a verbal warning was given, it has to be put in writing, so then it becomes a written warning.
Some employers go with a second or third warning before discharge as thier steps in the process.
I've always felt that as you move up the level of the progressive disciplinary steps, not only the degree of discipline should change but also the level at which it is being issued. It makes no sense for a second or third or "final" warning to have ben issued by the same supervisor, especially if we know the first warning didn't take hold. The higher level demonstrate to the employee that management is taking a more serious look at him or her and that discharge is in fact a real possiblility -- it's not just something the supervisor is yakking about (it is blatant support for the supervisor over the employee).
In our system, the next step after warning is called the "reprimand." That's issued by the immediate manager (above sueprvisor) and is placed in the official employee file where it is kept up to two years.
After that many employers -- and we do too -- have a suspension without pay; some may even have a suspension with pay. Suspension may vary in length. It is usually the last disicplinary step before discharge.
A new "trial" or "orientation" period may be used by some employers as part of a progressive disciplnary program; indicating that the emplyee needs to prove him or herself within a specified time limit otherwise "its pack your bags."
Demotion to a lower level may be part of an employer's progressive discilinary scheem, but most likely it isn't. Usually demotion invovles performance, while progressive idsicpline is most convenienct to be imposed with misconduct. If an emplyee volates poikcies or acts inappropriately in one job, there's nothing to belief that he or she won't continue that misconduct in the lwer level.
Finally that leaves discharge as capital punishment in the workforce.
I agree that it is important to indicate that any step may be repeated or skipped as the particular circumstances warrant for that emplyee at that particular time.
Does this mean we are back to writing specific discipline policies using the steps, but leaving enough wiggle room that managers can skip steps and, of course, the language about certain things require immediate terminatin? What about naming examples of what constitutes conduct requiring immediate termination? I thought that we didn't give non-inclusive lists because the employees argued they thought the list was inclusive since there were examples. But I see in the sample policies that a non-inclusive list is used. Do we list some examples?
I also have a "Record of Conference" Form that requires the managers to reduce meetings about employee performance to writing, even the verbal ones. I tell managers that if they want to have an informal talk about correcting performance, I'm fine with that so long as everybody gets the one informal talk before the manager starts issuing corrective action.
I'll be glad to send you the policy and the form if you want it. Just e-mail me and I'll send it by return e-mail.
Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]
A great book that we use examples from is called:
'101 sample write-ups for documenting employee performance problems.'
It's by Paul Falcone
I've found employees are more responsive to making a change in behavior vs being written up for every infraction with no measurable goals to improve other than, 'just do it'. Also doesn't hurt if an employee decides to file a wrongful termination suit...you can show how you made every effort to help the employee improve. Of course, you need the manager's buy-in to this idea so they will actually give the employees a chance!
We do have a progressive discipline procedure consisting of 1= oral warning, 2= written warning, 3= 2nd written and 4= termination. However, it is very rare that we want to terminate someone, so we have also started the "personal improvement plan". It cost too much money to terminate ee's then rehire and train new hires when we can focus on more mentoring or training for our existing ee's.
We want to give our ee's every possible chance to improve and see there mistakes. We suggest an improvement plan and we give them an opportunity to present their own improvement plan.
1) What indicators are there to determine the need for an improvement plan?
2) Do you (a) utilize it at some point in the midst of the progression discipline process, i.e., after the second step is administered, or, (b) do you use it before going the progressive discipline route?
3) If the answer to question #2 is (b), what triggers the decision to administer disciplinay action?
4) What involvement do employees have in developing the improvement plan?
We also do the PIP to help determine if the errors or problems that the ee is making is due to lack of training.
We have not incorporated long drawn out procedures on PIP.
We have tried the 1, 2, 3 steps and then terminate, however we were frequently having to term even when we felt the ee was just not comprehending some aspect of their job.
I think the role we have taken in the steps to improve our ee's performance is a positive one, however it may work for some and may not work for others.
The ee has total involvement in their own improvement plan. Their improvement plan doesn't have to be elaborate, just as long as they are showing some type of interest in improving their work and work habits is motivation enough for my supervisors to act and go above and beyond to help make that ee be the best ee they can be and do the best job they can.
On the other hand, some ee's don't give a CARE. Those ee's will show no interest in making a PIP, in that case you still proceed with your progressive discipline.
Thank you for your detailed response. You answered my questions perfectly. It is a very interesting concept that I may consider for our company.
Don
As far as offending, it does not surprise me that you would consider my questions too detailed. I see this forum as a learning process, and what better ways to learn than to ask questions when you see something of interest. I read this forum a lot, but only respond when I have something to add that others have not already stated. I do not ask many questions because I consider myself to be a senior HR professional, but the process presented by T truely did interest me.
I'll go back to my cave now and watch you rack up the number of responses to just about every post.
We are very clear that each case will be handled individually and that the policy does not have to be followed in every instance. We have the right to elimate one or more steps and can terminate on the first offence.
Yesterday I was advised that one employee has had 12 manager counseling sessions in the last year for the same policy violation. Looks like this manager needs a refresher on counsling???