 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
NFFE 1450
News
Top 10 List of Common Supervisory Disciplinary Mistakes8/30/2005
Our Top Ten (sic) List of Common Disciplinary Mistakes
By Roger Howard and Sue Schmitz, FAA, Labor Relations Newsletter March 2002
No supervisor likes to take disciplinary actions against employees. It is human nature to want to avoid conflict. However, supervisors are responsible for efficiently accomplishing the agency’s mission and seeing that employees are following the laws, executive orders, regulations and agency and/or facility policies as modified by the union contract. Your goal, as a supervisor, is to promote the efficiency of the service by preventing the recurrence of misconduct, improving the employee’s attitude and behavior, and maintaining discipline and morale among others.
Discipline always should be progressive, consistent and based on specific documentation and fair warning. Ultimately, you must be able to defend the actions you take before a third party. Discipline is a last resort and can be construed as an indication of a failure. Make sure that you have taken all other possible steps so that you can be confident it is the employee’s failure. Avoid discipline when possible. Take disciplinary action when necessary.
We hope the following laundry list of “Common Disciplinary Mistakes to Avoid by Supervisors” will help you to tackle those problems and stay out of trouble. When in doubt, call your local servicing Labor Relations Specialist to assist – or rescue - you.
1. Failure to address issue(s) with the employee.
Myth: Ignore the problem long enough and it will go away.
Reality: Unattended problems typically continue, and frequently get worse.
2. Failure to document the issue.
Myth: Some evidence is better than none.
Reality: All relevant evidence is required to ensure your actions are sustained before third parties. Some issues require more investigation than others do. How much evidence is enough? Bottom line is you need enough to convince a third party that the employee knew the rule(s), but broke it (them). So, it is critical to keep contemporaneous documentation. Develop the habit of taking specific, regular notes. As soon as possible after an incident, record the date and time, what the employee did, what you did about it and any other relevant comments. A minute or two spent documenting is usually enough. This gives you the specificity to be able to refer to the incident in the future and note any pattern of behavior.
3. Failure to use the Douglas Factors (DF’s) to determine an appropriate penalty.
Myth: Not considering the DF’s won’t hurt me down the road. I’ll take my chances.
Reality: Determining applicable DF’s early on should facilitate selection of an appropriate penalty; that is, one that fits the offense(s) and is more likely to pass scrutiny by a third party (MSPB or arbitration).
4. Failure to use the letter of reprimand (LOR), as a method of instructing the employee, in the correct manner of handling any future issue(s).
Myth: The mere receipt of an LOR that only describes the misconduct will correct the
employee’s inappropriate work behavior.
Reality: Without also instructing the employee on how to act appropriately in the future, you may
not be successful in correcting behavior, which of course is the desired result. Further, failing to communicate this expectation may not guard against an employee defense of, “I didn’t know,” or “nobody ever told me.”
5. Timeliness in taking disciplinary action.
Myth: The situation I’m faced with is too difficult (or too sensitive) to deal with now. And I have a lot of “real” work that has to get done. Besides, there are no statutes of limitations as to when disciplinary actions must be taken. Reality: Again, the longer problems are left to fester, the worse things may become. Typically, witness’ memories fade, and people with relevant knowledge may leave; morale and productivity may suffer because of the perception that work rules can be violated without consequences. Then there are those third parties that insist on asking you why things took so long.
6. Failure to fully investigate issues.
Myth: I’m too busy. I know that haste can make waste, however, I can only do so much.
Reality: The evidence provided by the manager - unless obviously inaccurate or incomplete - is
heavily, if not exclusively, relied upon in taking actions against offending employees. In other words, the case is only as good as the evidence supporting it.
7. Failure to provide the employee with a time limit, when an extension of the reply period is requested. Myth: I’m confident I can trust this employee to timely cooperate, even if I don’t insist on holding him or her to a new date to reply to the charges. After all, he or she has an honest face, so why not? Never mind that he or she could eventually lose his or her job. Besides, I’ve got more paper work now than I can possibly handle. I’ll take the chance. Reality: Whether the request for extension is granted or denied, your decision should be written prudently and wisely, including confirmation of the new date to reply. To do otherwise, could be perceived as a blank check as to when the employee has to reply. Depending on whom you’re dealing with, that could be a long time. Obviously the best defense to avoid such eventualities is to document everything in writing, including required dates, particularly in an adversarial working relationship.
8. Locking into a penalty before hearing the employee’s reply. Myth: I’ve made my decision relying on the agency Table of Penalties for penalty selection guidance. I feel confident that the evidence developed completely supports the action I’m considering. I’ve been down this path before, so what’s wrong with a pre-conceived notion of what action I should take, before I take it? Reality: This is all well and good - experience can help. But keep in mind that situations involving misconduct, rarely, if ever, are exactly alike. Consider Yogi Berra, when he said, “It ain’t over with until it’s over,” or Murphy’s Law, “Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.” Could they have more relevance to taking disciplinary actions than we realized?
9. Failing to coordinate formal disciplinary actions (letters of reprimand and above) with Human Resources (HR). Myth: I’ve been to all the training courses, kept and consistently refer to all the materials, and have superior knowledge, skills and experience dealing with problem employees. Therefore, what else can HR possibly assist me with that I don’t already know?
Reality. Taking discipline is often a complicated, legalistic and ever-changing, technical line of work. Consistent consultation with your HR representative should minimize the possibility of the agency not being sustained before third parties. Try it. You may like it. And the price and potential rewards are free, including the friendly greeting and assistance.
10. Failing to take responsibility for imposing disciplinary action. Myth. I don’t need another workplace problem! So, I’ll just tell my employee that upper level management (or Human Resources) is forcing me to take the action. Reality. Your employees work for you, and maintaining discipline is part of your job. Trying to
deceive them into believing that you played no part in disciplining them will most likely discredit you further in their eyes. Instead, as difficult as it may be under these typically difficult circumstances, you should assume responsibility for your actions, and consistently maintain your composure, honesty and professionalism when doing so.
11. Command influence in selecting an appropriate penalty. Myth. If I disagree with a subordinate supervisor’s penalty decision, I should not hesitate going over his or her head to change it to conform to my way of thinking. Reality. There is of course no disputing the right of higher level supervisors’ authority to review the work and/or decisions of subordinates. However, except in obvious instances, the authority of subordinate supervisor’s authority to initiate and/or decide disciplinary actions, should not arbitrarily be usurped. In cases of disagreement over proper penalty selection, refer to the agency table of penalties and/or past actions taken for similar offenses for proper guidance. Keep in mind that the table of penalties provides “general” versus “absolute” guidance, and may not cover every offense occurring in the work place. Another important danger of inappropriate or unnecessary interference is that employees may perceive that the usurped supervisor has lost power, and therefore, does not have to be taken seriously. Instead, strive for common sense compromises, again, using available management tools, such as the agency table of penalties for appropriate guidelines and/or the advice and guidance from your Human Resources representative.
|
|
|
| | | | |
|
|
Last modified: 11/20/2009
Copyright 1996-2001, The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers |
|
