Quick Response Please

One employee claims another shoved her purposely. these two have a history of dislike for one another. The one ee has put the incident in writing to upper management, stating she feels this is a physical threat to her and wants "something done" about it. A third party witness to the event states it was "no big deal". Upper management has asked me to "check into the matter". Any suggestions as how to handle and still come out with both ee's not hating each other (or me or the 3rd party involved in the incident)? We meet tomorrow morning!

Comments

  • 29 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Don't know if it will work out where each don't hate the other or you or the third party but, make sure you have signed written statements from all involved before you have your meeting. Analyze the facts and act accordingly.
  • Sort of hart to respond without have a little more informationation. I am assuming these are 2 employees that do not report to each other. However, do they work in same area or dept.
    I would get each one of their statements/story. Also ask each if there were any witnesses and get their statement (prefer in writing if they will give it.) If accuror won't give in writing, I would drop until they do.
    After talking with each involved, if it looks like a he said/she said, I would just instruct both of them that if they are unable to get along as friends or co-workers of the company, then you are going to ask them to "stay away" from each other. You can say there is no reason why you have to be close enough to even touch each other and that they are to just totally avoid/stay clear of each other. If there is any other type of touching, pushing or aggrevating they will have to be disciplined. (Whatever is the next step.) If the one complaining doesn't want this person to touch her, stay away from her.

    E Wart
  • You state that the witness said it was no big deal? What does that mean? Therefore, I would suggest that a further investigation is in order.
  • Who would you suggest I "further investigate"? The ee who was the witness was the only witness. She gave us addition info in our interview w/her but the final synopsis was that what she witnessed wasn't a big deal. We DO intend to interview the other two as I stated in my post, however I'm seeking opinions on how others would handle the situation.

  • We DO intend to interview the other two as I stated in my post,however I'm seeking opinions on how others would handle the situation.

    Without sitting in on the interview, listening to how and what was said, watching body language and then being able to evaluate the "facts" as presented, the only advice someone here could give would be a lot of what-ifs. This is one of those times that we as HR professionals must use our ability to break-down and analyze the FACTS and make a decision.

    As you have been advised, make sure that you have signed written statements from all involved so they can't change their story. As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't see it or I don't have a signed statement, it didn't happen!



  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-25-04 AT 09:19AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Yes I agree and we do have a signed statement. I just love HR. The ee who states she was pushed says in her statement that the company needs to "do" something about this as she views this as physical violence in the work place.
  • If you have ascertained that there was some physical touching/pushing, then E Wart probably had a good solution. Then you have "done something about it".
  • The thing of least value in your investigation, and your posts, is the comment from the witness, that 'it was no big deal'. To the person who was pushed, shoved, touched, it was a big deal. Even 'touching' in this context is a threat. Most company policies in this regard prohibit assault, physical contact and threats of violence or bodily injury, which is how I would view it if someone touched me and we already had an adversarial relationship.

    So, here's my speech to both of them, seated together in front of me. "My investigation reveals that you did in fact touch her in what she perceived as a threatening manner. That is unacceptable. Wait until I finish. Do not interrupt me. You two for whatever reason do not get along with each other. You must work together. I don't care in the least whether or not you like or associate with each other. That is not relevant to your job here. If both of you want to continue working here, this must come to an end, effective one hour ago. If it has not ended, one or both of your will be terminated. And that includes threats, glaring, rumor mongering, touching, anything that I determine is not conducive to this company carrying out its objectives. Do not test me on this. I asked you to let me finish. Do not interrupt me. Mary, you are suspended from work without pay for two days effective at noon today. You may return to work on Tuesday at noon. If you choose to return, I do not want to get notice that you are continuing this behavior. If I do, you will be right back in here. And Jimola, I will suspend you as well if you go back into the work area and are taking pleasure in this action by discussing it among your co-workers. What I have said applies to both of you. Now, are there questions about what I have said?
  • No sir, and thank you! :-)
  • Thank you sir, may I have another?
  • If you remain in that fetal position, I will let this dog loose!
  • But all I want is my pacifier and teddy bear.
  • We had a similar situation between Supervisor and one of her staff. They were having a loud disagreement, the staff member said she did not have to take this kind of language and walked away in a huff. The supervisor grabbed her upper arm and turned her saying, "You must listen to me." Several witnesses around.

    A formal complaint was lodged by the staff person, who later also filled out a formal complaint of assault with the local police.

    We suspended both for a week with pay while we investigated. Both EEs also ended up retaining counsel for the civil complaint that was threatened. Both came back to work, we wrote both EEs up for their various inappropriate actions, and changed the reporting structure to minimize contact. AFter a couple of months, the staff member resigned for unrelated medical reasons.

    My point is, the EE that thinks she was assaulted has other recourse that may complicate this situation. That said, Don's conversation with the two of them had me "Yes Sirring" all the way back to my work station.
  • Update - We held separate fact finding meetings with each ee and of course each has a different opinion of what happened. In fact the one ee states nothing happened at all! We plan to bring them together and follow a dialogue similar to what Don suggested. We are almost certain the one ee intends to take legal action if nothing is done about this. HOpefully it will resolve in the meeting (but it's doubtful)
  • Don't forget, you have a witness. It matters not that the witness thinks it was 'no big deal'. YOU DO HAVE a witness who, I assume, backed the complainant up.
  • no she did not! but the complaintant thinks she did/will and so stated in her written complaint.
  • So were you able to determine if there was physical contact?
  • At best it seems that she probably touched her to some degree but not likely to the degree that was reported (per an eye witness but the eyewitness is a friend of the accused). We will bring them both together on Monday. OH BOY!
  • Now that you've made it more clear that the 'witness' does not corroborate, I'll remove my advice for the two day suspension, unless your sit down chat with them leads you to conclude that the credibility of the complainant rises above that of the other two. The recommendation for the rest of the lecture stands.

    My assessment of your earlier posts was that the 'witness' had agreed there was some untoward contact but she 'felt it wasn't a big deal'.
  • Don - I would take the statement of the witess over either of the two involved! And she's the one who stated "it was no big deal"! After speaking with each of them, there really doesn't seem to be any way to tell who did what for sure. There does seem to have been "some" contact but whether it was intentional or no has not been clear. Over time, these two ee's have not gotten along well for whatever reason so this is no surprise. It also doesn't help our situation that one is caucasion and the other African American!
  • Spome quesitons about the incident that you haven't identified or answered:

    What occurred before the incident? What was being said? Who did what? What was tone of voice? Were they squared off in a verbal argument or what? How close were they to each other?

    Describe the push, or the bump or the whatever. Were hands used and if so where? What was said, if anything as the "push" occurred? What was the "pushed" employee's reaction? How did it fit within th eentire cirucmstances?

    What then occurred? Did the second employee say anything? Did they remain talking to each other? Did they both leave the area?


    What was the first employee's explanation for "pushing" the other employee?

    In essence, you need to put everything into ocntext.

    It will help determine more precisely what occurred, whether it was intentional or accidental, done in anger or as a violent act, or some other physical act, wherhter it was provoked, etc.

    Tehn you can decide whether disicplinary either, or one, or both is apprropriate. But merely saying "one pushed the other" as a summary statement of the incident the other doesn't do it for me as a proper basis for determining if discipline aor any other action is appropriate.


  • Hatchetman - Supposedly nothing happened either before or after! One ee was standing in the hallway talking to 2 others (one who say it and one who didn't). One claims the other shoved her w/her shoulder in passing. The one who was hit said "excuse me!!" The other mumbled excuse me and continued walking. The party who witnessed it stated "it was no big deal". We are meeting with both of them today (the two directly involved).
  • I don't care who's black and who's white, so don't enter that into the mix. Neither race can get away with being abusive to the other. Please don't let that enter into your thoughts this morning when you meet with them.

    One thing we do here with our "Performance Commitment Procedure" is give the person unpaid time off, to consider things and it requires that they return with their written plan for corrective action. It can be two sentences or a page long, makes no difference. Then if they do not uphold their commitment, they are terminated. If they do not return to work after time off, with the written commitment, they are considered to have self-terminated. This softball approach could probably even be appreciated by Gillian3 and Hatchetguy. x:-)
  • Don - unfortunately the race issue was already brought up...........and not by management.
  • I wouldn't let that be my gyroscope. You've said earlier that there was nothing leading up to the incident and there's no recorded history of an ongoing conflict and I've heard nothing about any sort of racial discrimination or racially insensitive remarks or atmosphere, so I wouldn't be alarmed in the least by your earlier post saying one might litigate. Hoooey! Hopefully your investigation has been detailed enough to 'out' any racially based conduct. Don't ever let yourself be threatened by the playing of the race card or an employee threatening to get a lawyer. Deal with the facts and charges you have on the table and investigate accordingly and move forward without regard to race or any other factor. If your investigation is thorough and your action fair and consistent, that alone will shore you up should any additional flack fly your way.
  • The best way to deal with the issue is to address the conduct, rather than the explanation. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks it wasn't a big deal. You can meet with both of them, separately and get their version of the events. After you meet with them, if you can make any conclusions about who started what and who did what to whom, discipline based upon that. If you can't make that determination, then you should discipline both for fighting and inform them any further incidents will result in diciplinary action up to and including termination.
  • Does your employee handbook include a section on workplace violence? Regardless workplace violence and volatility are the primary issues involved here. Your investigation should be thorough enough to include any witness' statements as well as the statements of the parties involved. General notification to the rest of ALL your employees regarding a no-tolerance to violence in the workplace should again be communicated. Follow-up with both individuals and indicate such behavior is not condoned or tolerated. Should it continue, dismissal may be warranted depending on the facts of the status of the Employer (Union, Private, Public, etc.) Further, an assault or battery charge could be lodged against the "shover" independently outside of the workplace.

    Marty
  • Some people don't get that workplace violence can be something as simple as blocking a hallway thereby preventing another person from using it. One person may have made contact with the other - brushing by them to get past them, but if the blocking of the hallway was intentional, that could also be part of an assault. I know it is a stretch, but some of my research results about workplace violence brought up the hall-blocking as an example. It seems appropriate to mention it here.
Sign In or Register to comment.