Disciplinary Meeting Simulation Report Paper Example

The focus of this report is to apply employee relations theories and best practices to design and conduct an employee disciplinary meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to address a violation of an organizations policies and regulations. An effective and well-planned disciplinary meeting should be able to establish relevant information, give all parties opportunity to present their side of the story and resolve the issue in a reasonable and fair manner. In addition, the disciplinary procedure should give direction on the best plan of action.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Analysis of Key Issues

The key issue that led to this disciplinary meeting was the failure by one of the companys employees to follow the expected health and safety rules. International Widget Manufacturer provides warehouse services. Within the warehouse, various types of material handling equipment are used to move heavy and large items. Owing to the high risk of personal injuries, employees are obligated to observe all safety and health procedures including wearing protective equipment for eyes, feet, and head, and high visibility devices over their torso (Gomez & Dessler, 2013). The concerned employee was seen working without wearing the required safety and health equipment, which endangered his own life and those of other employees.

Under occupational health and safety standards of Canada, employees have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect their own health and safety. This can be achieved by adhering to the health and safety principles laid out by their employers. Employees also have a duty to embrace highest standards of health and safety for other people who may be affected by their failure to observe safety standards in the workplace (Lehmann & Taylor, 2003). This requirement may involve complying with any steps taken by the employer to comply with the stipulated standards. The concerned employee, in this case, failed to observe the safety procedures specified by their employer. In particular, the employee failed to wear a high visibility device.

A key relevant issue that needs to be analyzed during the disciplinary meeting is whether the employer had given sufficient resources and guidelines regarding the appropriate safety procedures in the workplace. Each employee was entitled to an annual allowance which could be used to finance the purchase of personal protective equipment. As such, the employer played his part effectively, meaning that it was the responsibility of the employee to purchase the equipment and use them during work.

Desired Outcomes

There are two desired outcomes that are the subject of the employee disciplinary meetings. The first outcome is to encourage the employee in question to follow the stipulated workplace safety and health requirements. The second one is to strengthen a culture of active employee participation in safety and health programs (Milosh & Alison, 2013). In relation to the first outcome, the behavior that led to the violation of the companys occupational health and safety policy will be investigated and appropriate recommendations will be given. The employee will be granted an opportunity to appear before an investigating panel to answer to the charges and explain the reason for his behavior.

Regarding the second outcome, the meeting will be an opportunity for the disciplinary committee in collaboration with the human resources department to reevaluate the companys health and safety policies and identify potential loopholes. These loopholes will be addressed to make the policies more effective. In addition, the disciplinary hearing will serve as a wake-up call for the HR to conduct an organization-wide sensitizing program. This program will involve employees from all departments and will focus on encouraging them to support and promote the culture of safety and health working environment.

Steps Taken

A rigorous but fair disciplinary investigation was conducted regarding the alleged violation of the companys workplace health and safety requirements (Shultz & Taylor, 2006). The findings of the investigation were presented to the head of HR who was also the chair of the disciplinary committee. The head of HR made a decision to the effect that the employee had a case to answer and that a disciplinary hearing could be held to the same effect. A committee of three people was established. It consisted of the head of HR, the employees immediate supervisor and a management representative. The members were provided with written record of the accusations.

The mandate of this committee was to conduct hearing with the employee regarding the offending behavior and make the necessary ruling regarding what ought to be done.

A letter was sent to the employee inviting them to the disciplinary hearing. The letter was sent three days earlier so as to give the employee sufficient opportunity to prepare their responses to the alleged misbehavior. This did not come as a surprise since the employee had had an opportunity for face-to-face a meeting with the HR during the investigation process. The invitation letter outlined that the employee was free to bring along a colleague to the hearing. The colleague would be allowed to put the employees case forward, respond on behalf of the employee and confer with the employee during the hearing (Lehmann & Taylor, 2003). Prior to the meeting, the head of HR arranged for the required evidence and witnesses to be made available and to have someone to take notes during the hearing proceedings. The employee chose not to be accompanied into the meeting by a colleague or any other person.

During the hearing, the head of HR read the accusation to the employee and cited corresponding policy standards that were violated by the employee. The employee was allowed to respond, which included the opportunity to highlight all mitigating circumstances (McClosky, 2008). In his defense, the employee acknowledged that he failed to wear the high visibility device as required but stated that this was as a result of circumstances beyond his control. The HR refuted employee's defense arguing that the employee had repeated the offense several times despite receiving warnings from the supervisor and the HR.

The HR noted that the employee was aware of the health and safety standard which he violated as all new employees are subject to induction and a safety test. From time to time, the employees are trained on how they can be safe in the workplace. The employee in the scenario was one of the employees who received the training. He had even signed attendance registers, an indication that he indeed attended the training workshops. As such, it was proven that the employee was very much aware of the excepted safety procedures in their place of work. In any event, there was appropriate signage in the workplace notifying employees that they ought to have the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Having confirmed that the employee was aware of the occupational health and safety standards, the disciplinary committee proceeded to explain the violation of the standard. It was noted that the behavior of the employee jeopardized his own safety and that of the entire organization (Shultz & Taylor, 2006). The HR explained that since the employee did not wear a high visibility device as required, it was difficult for other employees to spot him in the warehouse. One of the employees who came in as a witness recalled how he almost knocked down the accused employee because he could not see him properly in the dark alleys of the warehouse.

The offending employee had good opportunities to correct their behaviors but did not. The first time his behavior was reported, the supervisor made a direct engagement with the employee and informed him of the need to be responsible in the workplace. However, this engagement was met with minimal compliance as the employee repeated the precarious behavior a few days later and more often therefore after. The verbal warning by the supervisor was essentially the first step in a series of progressive disciplinary action whose aim was to help the employee to change his behaviors (Smith & Mustard, 2007). Since the verbal warning did not result in the desired outcomes, the disciplinary committee recommended that it was necessary to issue the employee with a written warning. Before issuing the written warning, the head of HR explained to the employees the gravity of his behaviors and that the company expected his behavior to change. The written warning included many things such as a detailed description of the problem, a description of the consequences and the time frame for meeting the expectations.

Regarding the measures the employee ought to have taken to correct his behavior, it was banned from reporting to work without wearing the required safety gear including the high visibility device. The employee was also instructed to have two pairs of the protective device, which could be purchased at the companys cost. The supervisor was issued with a special sheet which could be marked each day as proof that the employee had not engaged in malpractice in relation to the workplace health and safety practices. A warning was issued to the effect that if the employee disregarded any of the companys safety and health rules again, his contract with the company could be terminated without further notice.

Conclusion

In summary, the proceeding discussion has outlined a procedure that was used to conduct an employee disciplinary meeting. The meeting was an opportunity for the employee to present himself to the disciplinary committee. After a thorough investigation, it was found that the employee had exhibited blatant disregard of the applicable safety and health procedures and that he had failed to change his behaviors despite having had an opportunity to do it. As verbal warnings had not achieved the desired effect, it was decided that a more stern action would be taken against the employee. In effect, a warning letter was written to serve as a warning that his behaviors would not be tolerated anymore. The letter outlined that the employee would have to observe all health and safety laws for his own benefits and that of the whole organization.

References

Gomez, L. & Dessler, G. (2013). Employee Relations. New York: Pearson.

Lehmann, W. & Taylor, A. (2003). Giving Employers What They Want? New Vocationalism in Alberta. Journal of Education and Work, 16(1),45-67.

McClosky, E. (2008). The Health and Safety of Young People at Work: A Canadian Perspective. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 1(1),41-49.

Milosh,R. & Alison, T. (2013). Health and Safety For Canadian Youth In Trades. Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society, 20, 33-51.

Shultz, L. & Taylor, A. (2006). Children at Work in Alberta. Canadian Public Policy, 32(4), 1-11.

Smith, P. & Mustard, D. (2007). How Many Employees Receive Safety Training During Their First Year of a New Job? Injury Prevention, 13(1), 37-41.