The Company applies the Progressive Discipline Policy to give the employees a clear vision of what behavior, performance, and working culture are expected from them. The Company takes responsibility for supervising the execution of the following rules by the employees. Job autonomy improves work-life balance effectively for employers and employees (Wood et al., 2020). Thus, the Policy does not restrict the employees’ rights and freedoms; it guarantees the safety, equity, and protection of the Company’s properties and business processes. Progressive Discipline Policy applies to all employees, regardless of whether they are contract or non-contract ones.
Progressive Discipline Process
The Process of Progressive Discipline is to be used when the Company’s employee violates its general policies, or their behavior severely affects operations. Progressive Discipline Policy issues on performance, behavior, attendance, or safety rules non-compliance. A result that contributes to economic expectations and is based on strategic objectives is to be understood as performance (Szabó et al., 2017). Examples of cases to utilize the Policy:
- Performance: failure to maintain the standards of the Company’s work; instructions unfollow; improper property usage;
- Behavior: inappropriate actions, breach of the working culture rules, insults; harassment;
- Attendance: absence at working hours written in the contract, attendance report falsification; more than three days of absenteeism without a cause;
- Safety: general safety protocols violation, actions caused harm to the other employees, non-compliance with the Smoking Policy.
Progressive Discipline Levels
The Policy divides Progressive Discipline into four levels based on the rate of an employee’s misbehavior. The levels are to be used by the supervisor to choose the type of response on employees’ failure to comply with the rules. The supervisor is capable of applying the warnings of the verbal, written, and final written levels. The termination of employment must be revised and admitted by Human Resources, and, in specific cases, by the chief or senior executives.
Level 1. Verbal Warning
The verbal warning includes the policy clarification for an employee, and the supervisor has to consider the non-compliance. The supervisor is expected to check if the warning has been effective by analyzing an employee’s behavior for two weeks after the case. If the employee does not improve behavior, and it still severely affects the operations, it is the cause for the written warning to appear.
Level 2. Written Warning
If the Company’s policies are violated for the second time during twelve months, the supervisor has to warn an employee with the letter to remind them about the rules. The warning has to explain the case of non-compliance and submit further actions to be applied if the case repeats. An employee signs a document confirming that they received the warning and be compliant with the Policy.
Level 3. Final Written Warning
If the violation appears for the third time in twelve months, the supervisor has a right to suspend an employee or impose a fine. The letter is also to be written to an employee, and the document about a case is to be created and sent to Human Resources. If an employee does not agree with the supervisor’s decision regarding penalties, they have a right to discuss it with Human Resources.
Level 4. Termination of Employment
If an employee gets three warnings within three months, or about one particular misbehave action, the termination investigation is to begin. Such actions, as serious violence of the safety rules, harassment, and behavior that led to considerable damage, both physical and financial, are to be rated as level 4 without verbal or written warnings. The supervisor opens the investigation case, and Human Resources have to work on it.
It is necessary to have a witness for any level of Progressive Discipline. If possible, a higher-ranked person is to call as a witness, and any of the employee’s peers are prohibited from witnessing (Leonard, 2020). Witnesses have to provide the supervisor with written confirmation of their status for further investigation.
Investigation begins with the supervisor’s report to Human Resources or the straightforward request to terminate employment. Human Resources Manager has to revise the profile of an employee and make the final decision within two weeks. The Witness, the supervisor, and the employee are expected to show up at separate disciplinary meetings where the manager investigates the case’s points. The decision can be disputed by the employee within two weeks, and the new investigation has to be led by a different manager. The chief or senior executives have the right to be involved in the investigation if it was disputed by an employee. It is the responsibility of the executives to get lawyers for both sides if needed.
Progressive Discipline and Merit System
Progressive Discipline and its Policy are to be followed by all employees, regardless of their merit status. The Company highly respects diversity and equity, so all of the employees have the same rights and responsibilities. An employee gets the merit status after the probation period, and if any disciplinary case appears during the probation, the employee is to be terminated by Human Recourses without investigation.
Documentation and Administration
All written warnings kept by the Company for twelve months, and if no other disciplinary cases appeared, the warnings are to be eliminated. Human Resources are responsible for the documentation and are to respond to any question or inquiry regarding discipline. Each employee gets a copy of the Policy and signs an agreement to consider the terms. The Company has the right to update the Progressive Discipline Policy in case of profound changes in its structure, or specific precedent that appeared during the operational process.
Leonard, E. (2020). Career conversations: progressive discipline the right way. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 59(2), 92-95. Web.
Szabó, P., Mĺkva, M., Vaňová, J., & Marková, P. (2017). Employee performance in the context of the problems of measurement and evaluation in practice. Research Papers Faculty of Materials Science and Technology Slovak University of Technology, 25(41), 63-70. Web.
Wood, S., Daniels, K., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2020). Use of work–nonwork supports and employee well-being: the mediating roles of job demands, job control, supportive management and work–nonwork conflict. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(14), 1793-1824. Web.