Test your HR knowledge: Documentation
March 3, 2010 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Communication, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Supervisors
Whenever a supervisor has to make a critical decision about an employee, someone’s bound to ask, “You have documentation to support that? It’s not enough just to have documentation; what’s more important is having the right documentation.
To get a better understanding of what meets the standard for appropriate documentation, answer True or False to the following:
(Answers are at the bottom.)
1. If you’re writing up documentation about an employee’s major violation of behavior or performance standards, you should try to stick with the major problem, and don’t include other minor violations.
2. For performance appraisals, the following statement is acceptable: “Your work is consistently below the quality of others in the group.”
3. Promises of promotions, raises or other employee rewards are binding only if they’re in writing.
Answers
1. True. Courts are suspicious of documentation that starts to look like a grab-bag of offenses. If you’re writing someone up for a string of unexcused absences, it’s dangerous to let the write-up wander into something like, “And you were five minutes late twice.”
2. False. The problem: Making a comparison with others doesn’t address the important question: Was the employee’s performance below acceptable quality standards? Better to give examples of deficiencies, such as, “You missed three important deadlines.”
3. False. Many court cases have illustrated that spoken promises can be as binding as written ones. Of course, spoken promises are tougher to prove, but no one wants to be put in a position in court where a lawyer asks: “Did you say you’d promote Miss Smith?”
Tags: documentation
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HRMorning!
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
March 8th, 2010 at 11:22 am
I agree with this except number 1 is a little misleading. I think if you have several minor offenses that are related to the major offense they can and should be included; especially if there are previous warnings on the subject. For example: You have an employee who has an issue with giving too much money to customers. You have discussed on several occasions the importance of counting the money multiple times to ensure accuracybefore counting it back to the customer. Now the employee is $500 short in their drawer due to the carelessness. The previous minor issues should be included in this major issue write-up. This will probably be a final warning type write-up as well. With the previous warnings you may even have enough to proceed with a for cause termination.
I do agree that in this case you should not include absenteeism issues or attitude issues or other non related issues. But if there are multiple infractions for the same thing, I think it is important for the company to establish the pattern of behavior.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I disagree with #1 to some degree and agree and disagree with KR. If you are proceeding with a termination, and if active violations are on file (usually for a 12-month period) for related or unrelated incidents, then those violations should be mentioned in the documentation to illustrate progressive discipline and/or a problematic employee. Even if you are documenting a single violation for disciplinary purposes, a final paragraph should be included as a reminder to the employee that previous discipline has been issued and further violations could result in stronger disciplinary action up to and including termination. I have been through many court hearings, unemployment hearings, union grievances and arbitrations where the employee’s previous related or unrelated violations were accepted into the record and considered for a disciplinary or termination decision.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I agree with Mary D. Progession of violations shows a pattern….meaning the employee has been repeatedly warned, but no improvement has been observed. This is espicially important regarding disciplinary action cases. Even in states where employees are “at-will”, by showing the progressing violations, an employer is more likely to win in any litigation the employee may bring about.
March 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I also have some issues with #1. If you are addressing the person’s overall attendance and listing their absences/occasions, I think it is acceptable to include the lates…..but I think you need to be careful of the “lates.” If you don’t dock the person’s pay….is it really a legit late? Unexcused? This would be in reference to a nonexempt versus salaried employee.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:55 am
For the most part, I agree with the points KR, Mary, Sande and JHR make;however, I think they may be missing the point of the article. Which, I think, is stick to one major issue per writeup. For example, If you are writing them up for tardiness, by all means include any tardiness related issues/actions, including any impact on their performance (i.e. when John is late his crew has to sit around and wait for him), but don’t lump in there (even if it’s true) that he has other unrelated problems like interacting with co-workers/customers. I know the supervisors in our organization have a tendency to do that (pile on), and I suspect the same is true elsewhere, and it just muddies the water. I know that during our grievance procedures the committee (panel of existing employees) get sidetracked by this. If the “other” issue is serious enough initiate another write up for it. Of course in the case of a termination, based on cumulative violations of various types, that information should somehow be captured in writing (maybe in a summary of disciplinary actions).
March 11th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Interesting take….everyone has valid points. On #1, I say stick to the subject at hand, if you have written the employee up for the same violation before, instead of adding tons of verbage, just list the previous dates for the same warning verbal or written. Each situation should have its own warning so you know the employee is clear on what your corrective action is. On #3, I know a verbal agreement is just as binding but as an employer, wouldn’t you feel more comfortable putting it in writing so everything is spelled out clearly?