09 Sep Disciplinary processes: checks and balances

I previously wrote about the fact that a disciplinary investigation should only proceed after careful consideration of all of the available information. You can read the post here https://hopeplace.co.uk/to-discipline-or-not-to-discipline-pause-ponder-then-proceed/

This week’s post builds on the pause, ponder and, then proceed principles with two fictional organisations, Prudent Worldwide, and Knowlege Scape. Both organisations have implemented checks and balances into their disciplinary processes to ensure fairness and equity.

Prudent Worldwide

Marc, a senior service manager telephones Jace, Head of HR, to inform her that he will be suspending Trisha, one of his managers. Marc explains that he heard that there was a verbal altercation between Trisha and another one of his manager’s Suzanne. The argument ended with Trisha allegedly saying, to Suzanne “I’m going to make sure you pay.” In Marc’s (unwitnessed view), this was a threat of assault, for which suspension is appropriate. Jace is acutely aware that Trisha recently submitted a grievance against Suzanne citing racial harassment that Marc is reluctant to address.

Jace suggests that Marc pauses his decision to suspend Trisha and gather more facts. Marc steadfastly refuses to do so despite Jace’s attempts to outline the potential risks. Jace explains to Marc that given the potential dangers of his intended actions to the organisation, she has no choice but to refer the matter to his director.

Jace contacts Reece, Director of Service Improvement. Reece questions Jace at length regarding the known issues and potential risks. Reece then telephones Marc to get his perspective. Marc is unable to offer Reece a sound or objective rationale as to why Trisha should be suspended or disciplined. While Reece dislikes overruling Marc, he does so in the corporate interest. 

Reece instructs Marc that it is not appropriate to suspend Trisha or take disciplinary action against her. Reece informs Marc that he will commission an independent investigation of all of the issues. In the meantime, Trisha and Suzanne will work separately with appropriate support.

Knowledge Scape

Charis is chair of a disciplinary hearing. The staff member has admitted all of the allegations. At the summing-up stage of the hearing, the trade union representative acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations. However, he goes on to say that he hopes the chair (Charis) will note that a staff member facing similar allegations was issued with a first written warning the week before. 

After careful deliberation, Charis decides that a final written warning for one year is appropriate. However, before sharing the outcome, Charis seeks HR advice regarding the trade union representatives comments. HR confirm that the cases are similar.

Although Charis believes that the allegations are severe enough to render a final written warning, she is aware that this would be at odds with the sanction recently issued to another member of staff. Therefore in the interests of fairness and equity, Charis issues a first written warning.

Quality decisions

Prudent Worldwide and Knowledge Scape used checks and balances pragmatically to ensure that decisions and actions were fair and balanced.

Checks and balances assist organisations in building a culture of trust and accountability as well as guarding against potentially discriminatory actions. When done well, it is a corporate win-win rather than a corporate own goal.

© Dawn H Jones is an HR Specialist.

Initially published on 28 November 2018; minor revisions 9 September 2020.

Please note that this post does not constitute specific HR or employment law advice if you require help please contact an appropriately qualified professional or email info@hopeplace.co.uk