Do they all have to be the same?

tonia · January 2004

I need some advice please! Our current corrective action policy states verbal, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, you're out,, where two of them could be work performance related and two are attendance related. If you write someone up for lateness (verbal) and then in 2 weeks, write them up for a performance problem (1st), is that appropriate? Or, would you (verbal) both situations, since they are different issues? Any suggestions would be appreciated!!

AnneHa · January 2004

Tonia, our policy includes the statement that
"(T)he progressive disciplinary procedures described in Comments (1),(2),and (3), above, may be applied to an employee who is experiencing a series of unrelated problems involving job performance and/or conduct." We'e used this particular part on several occasions for those employees who just don't get it!

Anne in Ohio

Pork · January 2004

Our policy allows for each offense to be inclusive of any final action. Why allow a bad apple to stick around longer to accumalate more and more stink? Three offenses in a close period of time be it 90 days to 120 days will get the WIN, as long as you are going in knowing you can prove he/she is a bad apple. Have not lost one yet and never will; if I have a doubt, then I'll influence the action to include one final opportunity to "straighten out one's act or write his/her own death sentence". We will often use these very words in the remarks space.

I concur with AnnaH.

PORK

ray a · January 2004

Personally, I would make them both verbals. I do not mix different offenses in the progressive disciplinary process. But, if two problems come up at the same time, I have included both in the same writeup, that way the next infraction of either type can be the next step in the process.

mdm · January 2004

My answer is no. We also have the verbal, 1, 2, 3, your out. At my company the warnings can be for different things. In my employer's eyes if an employee only got a verbal warning for every different thing they do, then they will never be let go and will always be a problem. I would not do 2 verbals in the situation you listed.

Whatever · January 2004

We are a manufacturing company. Verbal, 1, 2 3, you're out is okay for attendance problems and maybe for some work performance. But in some cases, it may be written, 1, 2, you're out or suspension and then your out. Therefore, we do not mix corrective actions.

Don D · January 2004

I agree with MDM. All of the policies I have administered allow for the accumulation of offenses regardless of their relationship to each other. If you were to operate that way, as crafty as employees are and as well as they manipulate policies, they would hang on with 39 first offenses, only adding to your heartburn. Nor do I agree with the notion of an offense automatically 'rolling off' after 12 months. That's easy to manipulate as well.

The company's profits and losses don't roll off after the passage of a magic number of months. Why should the activities of those who destroy the profits? Yes, Ray, you may write that down.

Hatchetman · January 2004

I generally agree with the oth3es about the cumulative impact. However, there are situtions I think when it would make sense to at least put th eemplyee on notice the first time before saying that the misconduct should be responded to based upon the prior disicplinary action on performance. Just keep your otpions open and be resonable.

One way to cut down on the problem you cite is to caution an employee on repeating similar conduct or performance in more than one aspect of the problem for example, supose you have an emplyee who has an absence problem. You have a policy against excessive absences which warrant discharge eventually. And the sueprvisor has issued instructios to the emplyee to call in when he is going to be absent.

You issue a warning for for the absences. But you should not only caution the emplyee about continuing too many absences, you should caution the emplyee about poor attendance, which could include tardiness, and his failure to follow policy and instructions (for not calling in to report the need to be absent) and other general type issues that can be linked to the absences and the conduct of the employee. That way, the employee is on notice to follow instructions and policy, to improve attendance which includes not being tardy as well as not being absent from work. Thus, you have put the employee on reasonable notice for several things an he can be held accountable and then disicplined if he does them. For example, if he fails to follow supervisor's instructions in doing a particular task, then you could discipline him at second level for the non-compliance because you already disciplined him at first level for that type behavior (even though it was for absences and not calling in).

janeS · January 2004

Here's another scenario.... Last year we implemented 2 new disciplinary policies: Corrective Action for behavior/conduct and Performance Improvement for quality of performance...with each policy having 1, 2 and 3 stages...but if an Associate receives 3 level 2's or 3's or any combination between the 2 policies...it's grounds for termination.

Having been in place for almost a year now, I have seen the benefit in the ability to successfully handle repeat offenders...those that understand when absences and tardies drop off.

As DJ says, just my $.02