Administering and Managing Discipline
Managers must ensure that employees who are disciplined receive due process. In the context of discipline, due process means fair and consistent treatment. If an employee challenges a disciplinary action under the EEO laws or a union grievance procedure, the employer must prove that the employee engaged in misconduct and was disciplined appropriately for it. Thus, supervisors should be properly trained in how to administer discipline.96 Two important elements of due process that managers need to consider in this area are (1) the standards of discipline used to determine whether the employee was treated fairly and (2) whether the employee has a right to appeal a disciplinary action.
Basic Standards of Discipline
Some basic standards of discipline should apply to all rule violations, whether major or minor. All disciplinary actions should include the following procedures at a minimum:
-
▪ Communication of rules and performance criteria Employees should be aware of the company’s rules and standards and the consequences of violating them. Every employee and supervisor should understand the company’s disciplinary policies and procedures fully. Employees who violate a rule or do not meet performance criteria should be given the opportunity to correct their behavior.
-
▪ Documentation of the facts Managers should gather a convincing amount of evidence to justify the discipline. This evidence should be carefully documented so that it is difficult to dispute. For example, time cards could be used to document tardiness; videotapes could document a case of employee theft; the written testimony of a witness could substantiate a charge of insubordination. Employees should have the opportunity to refute this evidence and provide documentation in self-defense.
-
▪ Consistent response to rule violations It is important for employees to believe that discipline is administered consistently, predictably, and without discrimination or favoritism. If they perceive otherwise, they will be more likely to challenge discipline decisions. This does not mean that every violation should be treated exactly the same. For example, an employee with many years of seniority and an excellent work record who breaks a rule may be punished less harshly than a recently hired employee who breaks the same rule. However, two recently hired employees who break the same rule should receive the same punishment.
The hot-stove rule provides a model of how a disciplinary action should be administered. The rule suggests that the disciplinary process is similar to touching a hot stove: (1) Touching a hot stove results in an immediate consequence, which is a burn. Discipline should also be an immediate consequence that follows a rule infraction. (2) The hot stove provides a warning that one will get burned if one touches it. Disciplinary rules should inform employees of the consequences of breaking the rules as well. (3) A hot stove is consistent in administering pain to anyone who touches it. Disciplinary rules should be consistently applied to all.97
The Just Cause Standard of Discipline
In cases of wrongful discharge that involve statutory rights or exceptions to employment at will, U.S. courts require the employer to prove that an employee was discharged for just cause. This exacting standard, which is written into union contracts and into some nonunion companies’ employment policies and employee handbooks, consists of seven questions that must be answered in the affirmative for just cause to exist.98 Failure to answer “yes” to one or more of these questions suggests that the discipline may have been arbitrary or unwarranted.
-
Notification Was the employee forewarned of the disciplinary consequences of his or her conduct? Unless the misconduct is very obvious (for example, theft or assault), the employer should make the employee aware, either verbally or in writing, that he or she has violated a rule.
-
Reasonable rule Was the rule the employee violated reasonably related to safe and efficient operations? The rule should not jeopardize an employee’s safety or integrity in any way.
-
Investigation before the discipline Did managers conduct an investigation into the misconduct before administering discipline? If immediate action is required, the employee may be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. If the investigation reveals no misconduct, all of the employee’s rights should be restored.
-
Fair investigation Was the investigation fair and impartial? Fair investigations allow the employee to defend himself or herself. An employee who is being interviewed as part of a disciplinary investigation has a right based on federal law to have another employee present to be his or her advocate, or to have someone to consult with, or simply to be a witness.99
-
Proof of guilt Did the investigation provide substantial evidence or proof of guilt? Management may need a “preponderance of evidence” to prove serious charges of gross misconduct, and a less stringent (but still substantial) amount of evidence to prove minor violations.
-
Absence of discrimination Were the rules, orders, and penalties of the disciplinary action applied evenhandedly and without discrimination? It is not acceptable for managers to go from lax enforcement of a rule to sudden rigorous enforcement of that rule without notifying employees that they intend to do so.
-
Reasonable penalty Was the disciplinary penalty reasonably related to the seriousness of the rule violation? The employer should consider related facts, such as the employee’s work record, when determining the severity of punishment. There might be a range of penalties for a given rule infraction that depend on the length and quality of the employee’s service record.
Because the just cause standard is fairly stringent and can prove unwieldy in cases of minor infractions that require immediate supervisory attention, nonunion employers who believe that their employees work under employment at will may choose a less demanding discipline standard.100
The Right to Appeal Discipline
Sometimes employees believe they have been disciplined unfairly, either because their supervisors have abused their power or because their supervisors are biased in dealing with individuals whom they like or dislike. For a disciplinary system to be effective, employees must have access to an appeals procedure in which others (who are perceived to be free from bias) can examine the facts. As we discussed in Chapter 13, g ood employee relations requires establishing appeals procedures that employees can use to voice their disagreement with managers’ actions. For challenging disciplinary actions, two of the most useful appeals procedures are the open-door policy and the use of employee relations representatives. These two methods are attractive because of their flexibility and their ability to reach quick resolutions. The Manager’s Notebook, “Mistakes to Avoid When Administering Discipline,” lists some common pitfalls that can occur when disciplining employees and ways to avoid them.
MANAGER’S NOTEBOOK Mistakes to Avoid When Administering Discipline
Customer-Driven HR
-
Losing your temper When you lose control of your temper, you may say things that damage your relationship with the employee and that you may later regret. Your loss of self-control may also encourage the employee to lose control and yell right back at you. It is preferable to step back and take a deep breath before you begin to speak to the employee who is misbehaving, no matter how angry you are feeling. Once you are calm you can have a more constructive conversation with the employee.
-
Avoiding disciplinary action entirely Many supervisors avoid disciplinary action entirely because they associate it with punishment and fear harming the relationship with an employee. A supervisor needs to understand that the purpose of discipline is to correct behavior, not necessarily to punish an individual. Avoiding disciplinary action may actually harm an employee who is deprived of the chance to learn how to correct his or her behavior.
-
Playing therapist Trying to get to the root causes and motives for a behavior may send the wrong message to an employee. Unless a supervisor is trained as a therapist, the employee may misinterpret the supervisor’s personal questions as being nosy or overly analytical, which is unlikely to achieve the desired change in behavior. Employees respond more positively to a supervisor who is more decisive and points out the inappropriate behavior and communicates clearly what kind of performance is expected in its place.
-
Making excuses for an employee It is common for employees to make excuses that explain their mistakes. Some employees become adept at creating sympathy for themselves by telling tales of woe involving their family or personal hardships. By falling for these excuses, supervisors deprive employees the chance to accept responsibility for their mistakes and instead enable them to continue rationalizing their performance deficiencies. If an employee truly has a serious personal problem that is affecting work performance, he or she should seek help with the EAP.
-
Using a nonprogressive approach to discipline Managers sometimes postpone disciplinary action until the employee’s behavior is so intolerable that it must be addressed immediately. At this point, the manager feels the need to apply harsh sanctions because the inappropriate behavior has become intolerable. Nonprogressive measures (harsh initial action) that are administered to a long-standing but untreated problem often seem unfair and overly harsh by the target employee and sometimes by his or her coworkers, too. The solution is to curtail inappropriate employee behavior at the beginning with a more moderate sanction before the offense becomes severe and requires more forceful action.