Fraternizing with fellow employees

Cannon

Problem: I have a male salaried employee staying past "normal" buisness hours to "catch up" on work and a female hourly employee that works in our call center (2 hrs after normal hours) to catch pacific coast orders. There are two hourly employees in the call center during these two hours. One of them leaves the call center every day from between 30 minutes to 1 1/2 hours. She goes to the other side of the building to "chat" with the salaried employee leaving the other hourly employee to take all the incoming calls. I have investigated this situation and confirmed that this is in fact taking place. The hourly employee will be dealt with according to our policy regarding leaving worksite on company time. A "courtesy conversation" was given to the salaried employee two years ago about this same type of activity. Documentation indicates "if improvement is not seen in this area that disciplinary action will be taken."

I am just wanting some feedback on how some of you would handle a situation like this.

Thanks for your input.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-11-05 AT 04:07PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I think your investigation is either flawed or didn't reach a correct conclusion. The salaried employee and the hourly employee are meeting at night for up to an hour and a half and you think it is to 'chat'? Not a chance. Depending on what level of progressive discipline appears in their files, I would consider two terminations.

marc

Whether or not the intercourse (x}>) going on with these EEs is limited to verbal or not, neither is working. The hourly EE is ripping you off and placing undue burden on her fellow staff that is left to handle all the calls.

The exempt EE is violating the letter of the earlier write-up.

Discipline should follow - and while termination is a strong step, it would be defendable.

Don D

Hire a photographer and he can discreetly snap them in compromising positions, if you want that. Fire them now or later.

JM in ATL

Fire them for what?? You have NO conclusive evidence - only speculation - that they are doing anything other than talking.

The salaried employee is not leaving his work station and he is there "after hours" so whatever he does during those hours is hardly relevant. (Not completely irrelevant, but he isn't violating any company policy that you know of).

The hourly employee needs to be written up for leaving her work station. Warned that if she does it again, she can and will received disciplinary action up to immediate termination.

The salaried employee was previously warned of what? Talking to other employees after his work hours? Distracting other workers? I am sure he is not discouraging the young lady from coming to see him, however I have failed to see what evidence you have against him that he has violated company policy. Maybe if you could provide more details as to why he needs disciplinary action.

Don D

I don't know what evidence she has. It's hardly speculative though if it has been reported and investigated, as she indicated. The salaried employee is working after the doors are locked because he is behind in his work. He is 'catching up'. He's not working if he's visiting for two hours and being behind in his work and chatting for two hours is hardly irrelevant unless he was hired as the social hostess. That is a policy violation in most businesses. He was warned about inefficiency on a prior occasion. This is the second (at least incident). Progressive discipline, although highly recommended, is not required unless that's the policy. I think I answered each of your questions.

dchr9203

I would follow the disciplinary action process. They both need to be discplined, not just the hourly employee. Put them on notice that the behavior is inappropriate and either its immediately discontinued or there will be termination of employment. Be clear about your expectations. If he's got work to do that warrents staying "after hours" then he best be doing it. She's being paid to function at the call center during specific hours, and no doubt there are scheduled break times, and she's expected to be at her work station on time and back from her scheduled breaks on time, period. Don't forget to let them know that the discontinuance must be ongoing; that any further incidents and they're out. Set the expectations and the consequences, and stand ready to follow through.

hrbanker

I agree. Give them both a severe warning ...documented in their files. She is shirking her job duties and he is, at the least, interfering with the work flow of another employee.

JM in ATL

Yes, I agree. Make employees stop talking to each other all together. That way you will promote a really positive work environment and everyone will be much more efficient.

marc

Perhaps the sarcasm emoticon would have helped your message.

No one wants to stop business conversation, nor any of the other conversations that help promote teamwork, but the behavior described in the original post was obviously over the top. Shirking her duty for a 1/2 hour to 1 1/2 hours every night is not acceptable.

Don D

JM in ATL: Does several hours of goofing off not register with you at all in a negative way? What about the morale of the other call center employee who is working both phones while this one flits down the hall? This situation is sending a much larger message throughout the company than any negative perception discipline might cause.

JM in ATL

What I don't like is that everyone is so eager to fire people. Not just this post in particular, but in general.

I've read far too many posts where people come here with a personnel problem they need help with and the typical answer they get is FIRE THEM!

Just fire them. Why bother disciplining them, it will only happen again. Just fire them.

Not only does that not help the poster develop their skills in HR to handle such situations it doesn't help the employee become a better asset to the company.

They are just going to find another job at another company and six months from now a new HR person is going to be typing the same question regarding the same person b/c nobody took the time to coach them into becoming a better employee.

Yes, she is wrong, Yes, he is wrong - but what do you gain from just firing them?

Maybe I am a rare individual when it comes to this, but my whole theroy is: If I am going to take the time to interview people to hire them, I'm going to take the time to make sure they are the employee I was expecting them to be. Now in a company of size, which I do work for a rather large company, that may just be wishful thinking - but I'm going to at least put a little effort into it to try to resolve the problem - not just get rid of it.

And the poster who asked for help is at least showing that she wants to find a resolution to her problem and not "just fire them". Otherwise, they would have already done so.

Pricehcs

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/flamethrow.gif[/IMG]

just kidding JM...

#1 thing a consultant shouldn't say: "I could tell you the answer right now, but we're committed to a three month project..." #-o

marc

JM - your upbeat perspective resonates with me. It shows up here and in other posts as well. I generally like what you say.

The approach to develop people is a good one and it is one I prefer to use.

That said, there are situations where stronger measures are in order. The exempt person who has already been written up for the same type of behavior is ready for the next step in discipline. After already being written up, we normally have a final warning, but that depends on the severity of the infraction(s) and the attitude of the EE. Also, I generally expect more from an exempt EE than a non-exempt. I probably could not defend that statement very well unless the exempt EE was in management, then my expectations are much higher.

The non-exempt EE is taking advantage of a situation - loose or no supervision for that evening shift. The company is partly to blame for not having mechanisms in place to monitor evening shift production and be able to pinpoint the problem.

In our shop, we have a strong belief in individual work ethic - we do our best to select individuals who can demonstrate this quality. The person who knowlingly shirks his/her duty and places that burden on others is one who will select themselves out of our company, but we do not terminate before we have made sure that;

1. The person has the right training,
2. The person has the right tools for the job,
3. The person has good direction/mentoring, and
4. The work environment is structured for success.

If the company has done all of that, and the EE is still failing, then the EE is the one with issues. After progressive discipline steps are taken, without notable change in results, the EE must move on to find a better fit.

NaeNae55

Wow! I am going to have to review our methods. Before reading this thread, I would have said that 2 years is a long time. Plus, the employee is working pretty much on their own time. I would have written up the exempt employee and made a note that they had been warned before, but I wouldn't have moved it up to the 2nd step in our disciplinary process. If they are not getting their work done, that is a different matter and would be handled separately. It looks like we are pretty loose compared to others on this site.

The hourly employee is a different matter. I always make it clear to hourly employees that a little visiting is ok, but anything more than a few minutes occassionally is basically stealing from the company. That employee would enter the 1st step of our disciplinary process. However, having said that it probably wouldn't have happened here in the first place. We don't allow hourly employees to work without an exempt supervisor.

I am curious. I thought 2 years was a long time, but apparently it is not long enough. So, how long is long enough? #-o

Whatever

The hourly employee is being paid for hours she didn't work. She is accepting paychecks she knows are wrong. This is theft. We had a similar situation and suspended for one month. We have never had the problem again (of course, that particular employee chose not to return from the suspension).

As for him, true he is exempt. However, he got his courtesy warning. I would give a written warning advising that if it happens again, he will be fired.