Is there a law on this?

Sally

I came back from vacation to learn that one of our supervisors (Artistic Administrator) had a meeting with one of his staff members (Orchestra Personnel Manager), during which some performance issues were addressed. The supervisor's supervisors (Music Director, with whom the employee also works) was also present. The employee was told when the meeting was scheduled the purpose of the meeting was to discuss some issues regarding the hiring of extra musicians (part of her job as orchestra personnel manager). During the course of the meeting the supervisor also discussed other issues with her job performance.
I might add that she objected to the Music Director being present, but since her work as Orch. Pers. Mgr. affect the orchestra as a whole, the supervisor felt it was appropriate.
Our musicians are union, but the Pers. Mgr. is not a member of the union, so there is no issue about the Weingarten Rule.
She has written her supervisor a letter stating 'there are labor laws prohibiting this kind of "blind-siding" when discussing an employee's performance.' Are there laws addressing how specific someone needs to be in letting an employee know the purpose of as meeting when there are performance issues?

Whatever

I don't know if there are any law, but to change the purpose of a meeting to include job performance is not fair. Furthermore, did you give the ee the opportunity to have someone of their choosing present?

Pork

It appears to me that this was a great opportunity to put words, issues, and concerns on the table. It appears to have been a verbal warning by all concerned with the established organization. While it may have not been done in "good taste" or the proper sequence of events in performance related cases; unless someone threatened or touched her, or has selected in a discrimantive matter this ee for performance issues, I would not be concerned. Take the matter up with your manager to determine the hidden agenda associated with this meeting. You should check with the effected ee and get his side of the story as to the harm that may have been done, if any. Given a take of harassment then you may want to soend more investigative time on the happenings in the meeting. Given there is nothing discrimating, drop the issue and move on to other more important issues!

PORK

Don D

>Our musicians are union, but the Pers. Mgr. is not a member of the
>union, so there is no issue about the Weingarten Rule.
>
The NLRA extends these same rights to other non management employees whether or not they are union members. There is nothing wrong with 'blind siding' an ee by calling them unannounced into a disciplinary conference. Most people who are called in don't really know they are about to be called in at that moment. I don't know that prior notification and scheduling of a meeting is necessary.

Crout

As stated above, Weingarten rights have been extended to non-union people, but keep in mind that Weingarten stipulates that a worker has the right to have a witness present during an investigatory interview, which the worker reasonably believes could result in disciplinary action. Speaking about some performance issues with an employee certainly does not violate Weingarten, or any labor law for that matter.

NicoleLee

Wouldn't Weingarten rights only apply if the meeting was an investigationatory interview? If they are simply disciplining an employee, Weingarten would not apply. also, management is under no obligation to notify employees of their Weingarten rights. Even though they may have been shady in their way of handleing the situation, no employee rights were violated.

scottorr

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-22-03 AT 03:24PM (CST)[/font][p]I think regardless if Weingarten applies, this is poor performance on the part of the supervisor. Although no laws may have been broken, you will now have a paranoid workforce which leads to higher stress, absenteeism and ultimately turnover. This was not strategic planning on the supervisors part and could be dealt with from that angle. I agree that the supervisor broke no laws from what is posted but definately showed poor judgement but, so has the ee.

Whatever

Discussing an employee's work performance can be difficult for both the manager and the employee. Usually, the employee has no idea that there is a problem. Some employees are willing to listen to what is said and make the necessary changes. Others get "huffy". However, why should the meeting be done in such a manner as the employee feels that salt has been added to the wound? The employee was lied to about the purpose of the meeting. Why couldn't the employee have been called into the office and told at that point that the meeting was to discuss performance issues? Whether or not Weingarten applies should not determine how an employee is treated.

Sally

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-22-03 AT 02:26PM (CST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-22-03 AT 02:25 PM (CST)[/font]

The supervisor told the employee the meeting was to discuss the hiring of part-time musicians, and I agree he did not give her full disclosure as to the nature of the meeting. How she handles the hiring of esxtra musicians is and has been a problem.
What she is in essence telling him is that there are labor laws that says he has to tell her the full agenda of the meeting--that he cannot tell her the meeting is about one topic--and a somewhat broad one--and then bring up another topic i.e., her job performance in several areas.

Pork

SALLY: TELL HER TO GO FOR IT!!! ENOUGH SAID, YOU WANT CONVINCE HER OTHERWISE>< DON'T WASTE ANY MORE OF YOUR CONCERNS AND TIME ON THIS SUBJECT. SHE OBVIOUSLY IS A JAIL HOUSE LAWYER "DAWG" SO CUT HER LOOSE FROM YOUR CONCERNS.

PORK

sonny

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-22-03 AT 02:40PM (CST)[/font][p]Nicely said Don. Most of you have heard me say this or something similar before. .told me once by a very wise labor attorney. Just because you have not done something illegal does not mean that you aren't guilty of extrememly stupid management practices. Extremely is a bit much for this scenerio but it could have been handled better.

Pork, my friend, go home and put your feet up and have a nice weekend.

Pork

Sonny: It is now 2:45 on Friday afternonn and I'm contemplating those very thoughts, but every time I reach to clear my comput here comes a "bing" and a new message to this post, which is a no brainer, so with this I'm out of here!

All of you still working so hard, pray for rain and maybe you'll be blessed!

PORK

Don D

Weingarten would apply if, in the view of the employee, discipline could result from the meeting. Who knows if it will or won't. The law addresses the employee's reasonable belief and the NLRB would no doubt side with him if he said he had that belief. If discipline has been decided and the only purpose of the meeting is to meet-out the discipline, then those rights don't apply. The employer is under no obligation to advise the ee of those rights or to ask the ee if they do in fact want another employee present. Even if the meeting is simply investigatory, if it is the employee's belief that he might be disciplined down the road, following the meeting, partly as a result of what transpired in the meeting, the rights do kick in. But to answer the orignal question, there's no law requiring an employer to advise an ee of the specific purpose of the meeting. "I'd like to see you my office for a minute, John", is notice enough.

I fully believe that labor unions are, as we speak, pushing legislation that would require an employer to give a three-day advance notice, in writing, to an employee advising the ee that management wishes to meet with the ee and stating the purpose of the meeting and outlining his Wiengarten rights. And giving him the option of declining the meeting. For sponsorship, they need look no further than Hilary, Ted and Miz Boxer.