|
|
|
Grief and the Grievance Process Here are readers’ ideas for coping with this month’s Manager’s Choice dilemma. To post your own ideas, see the instructions at the bottom of this page.
You need to develop and adopt a Workplace Violence Policy which outlines zero tolerance. The next thing is to provide Clemma anger management counseling while you develop your Workplace Violence Policy. You should also meet with Clemma (document your discussion and have someone else from management — personnel director or attorney — present as well as her union representative) and lay the law down. Make it absolutely clear that violence will not be tolerated in the workplace, physical or verbal.
Just imagine the field day the lawyers would have if Clemma comes in with a gun and shoots an employee rather than hitting them over the head with a three-hole punch, given her prior history and your lack of action.
Lawrence M. Clough
Workplace violence policy must come into play, or when next she “goes postal,” the employer won’t get tagged with a “would have, could have or should have” debate.
West Dakota has handled this employee wrong in so many ways; Ms. Rogers’ acting out her frustrations cannot be tolerated or excused due to an endless series of grievances. Even her supporters should get the hint that someday they could be her next target.
In most states, the three-hole-punch incident would be a criminal offense; the Upper Midwest must have a different set of laws than the rest of us. Terminate with prejudice.
Jay A. Gsell
However, I do agree totally with Jay Gsell’s response. I have had extensive experience with personnel issues similiar to this one, though without the physical violence. You must document and use progressive discipline (pending the level of infraction) from the begining in order to either change the negative behavior or move out the employee. It’s always a long and draining process which no one relishes but which is necessary to protect employees, address morale and hold people accountable.
John Pitzer
Yet as one reader pointed out, this whole situation indicates that there are far more severe problems that need fixing. I would also strongly recommend starting from square one with all supervisors and employees by re-emphasizing disciplinary training. I would especially work with all supervisory staff to ensure that they are not allowing disciplinary matters to slide. The agency top leadership must make sure that their elected leaders in the legislature understand that they must have support from the entire system, through the entire process.
Our state has faced similar situations so often that the public, and our elected officials, are now demanding an end to the civil service system that has evolved over the last 50 years. Why? Protection from political influence is obviously necessary in government, but total protection for a problem employee who would have long since been fired in the private sector is just not understood by our customers, the general public. That is most especially true when a public servant is allowed to verbally, physically or procedurally abuse anyone in the public.
The lack of assertive discipline is usually the fundamental problem. Discipline must be swift, consistent, fair and, whether one is inside or outside government, discipline must be progressive. Discipline also must be clearly separate from performance evaluations. Yet at the same time employees must understand that their behavior can and does affects the performance of other employees. Their inappropriate behavior is totally unfair to other staff and the general public.
Violence in the workplace often develops from the problem employee having a sense of frustration yet at the same time is not appropriately disciplined early on or, worse, sees another employee “get away with something.” When the frustration begins to be acted out by the employee and still nothing is appropriately done or only the problem employee is at that point “over” disciplined, then there is risk of rapid escalation.
The system beyond the work unit and the immediate supervisor is also a problem. I was involved with two cases involving potentially violent problem employees. Both case where handled with clear progressive discipline by the work unit supervisor. Both cases were taken by the employee through our state’s administrative appeals process and were lost by management. Ultimately we were required to fundamentally buy off the employee by settling the cases through monetary means because of our concern with the ultimate impact on the work unit. At this point in my career, I am not too sure that the administrative hearing officers shouldn’t be held accountable if the employee they return unscathed to the work unit cause problems.
While protection from undue political influence is still vital for all government employees, especially in regulatory agencies, keeping bad employees is unfair to everyone. If managers do not do their job relative to discipline and the system “supports” their lack of action, then appropriate protection will be lost solely to solve a problem with a minority of bad employees that managers have not taken the time to fix.
Edwin W. Irby Jr.
(b) Suspend immediately (without pay, if you can get away with it). You are obligated to protect other people by getting her out of the office.
(c) Assign an assistant to work on it, taking all necessary time; don’t try to do it all yourself. After all, you do have a department to run.
(d) In this and all other cases, document, document, document!
Larry Walker
During contract negotiations, when the union says it will strike before accepting any new grievance policy, let them. That kind of behavior cannot continue.
You also stated that you didn’t want to get other employees involved in this, so they wouldn’t have anything in their records involving them with this. Better them than you. Document every transgression from every employee, no matter how small. If it is in violation of the contract, you must document it. If you let things slide, employees can and will cite prior history for you letting things go, and you will lose even more grievances.
David Ziny
Clemma has established a record with a pattern of violent behavior which is known to management. My severe injuries, pain, and suffering will be directly due to the inaction of an officer of the state. I will have a sailboat and a summer home in the mountains within 18 months.
Samuel R. McNair
You will face an uphill battle with Clemma, your staff, and/or legal counsel. No matter what you do, you lose. So, go for the whole enchilada. Terminate Clemma and let her sue. Her documented violent behavior and mistreatment of others is intolerable. You can defend her termination better with a judge or jury than you can with the personnel department.
It is time to set a precedent, that the type of behavior she has exhibited will no longer be tolerated by your agency. If she loses, everybody else wins. If she sues and wins, she'll probably get a bunch of cash, but then maybe she'll take the money and run somewhere else. He absence will be worth whatever it costs.
Agencies need to take a stand from time to time, regardless of possible litigation. The other employees need to know that we care about them. The respect and morale gained from the other employees is well worth whatever litigation may ultimately cost. It's like the commercial ... 'priceless'
Jim D. Slaughter
How anyone cannot be successfully terminated for fighting or inflicting a potentially diabling injury on a co-worker is a foreign concept to my knowledge of personnel practices. The director is responsible for the safety of the workforce and the reputation of the division. This woman is exposing your agency to ridicule by her improper behavior along with creating a hostile work environment for your employees and clients. Transferring problem employees only temporarily solves your personal issue; it does not solve the real issue: proper conduct and behavior expected of employees.
First of all, remove the employee by suspension, with pay if necessary, to protect the workplace from further damage. Fully investigate and document every charge you have against her that can be introduced into the disciplinary process (get legal or private investigator help if needed). Commit all fellow employees to go on record describing her behaviors (with her out of the workplace they may feel more comfortable in providing accurate data and expressing their feelings of embarassment or fear for their safety). Include date/time and any attempt to discipline this employee.
Next, get yourself the best personnel attorney in the area, and have him/her draft or help you draft the notice of intended disciplinary action. Do this right the first time. Don’t move so fast that you fail to fully document the reasons for termination; terminate the malcontent. To retain this person unchallenged or unchanged in the workforce is to abandon responsibility for the department. Should you lose the termination in local grievance procedures, go to your court processes. If forced to reinstate the employee, try to obtain a judicial statement that the employee gets a “last chance agreement” that permits you to demand 100 percent compliance with expected behaviors and work rules.
Your other employees will respect your actions to get rid of or correct an embarrassment. If you have been lax before, put every employee on notice that the “past practice” of failure to hold people accountable is no longer acceptable, and from this day forward begin enforcing all work rules for every employee, including supervisors, in a consistent manner. Knowing that rules will be enforced equally for all employees will enable good employees to get as much attention as problem employees.
Model the behavior you want and expect. Talk about it in team meetings and briefings, and make it a part of your periodic training/retraining processes. Have supervisors catch people doing good and praise them; have them report good behaviors to you. Reinforce the behavior you expect.
Paul W. Butler
In most governmental agencies, the grievance process is normally cumbersome to administer because of the weight of documentation and follow-up required. It is also time-consuming and thereby can be used by disgruntled employees to create a safe haven for themselves at the expense of both their co-workers and the organization. What Clemma is doing is intolerable; it should not be allowed to continue. Suspension is in order and should be defended despite what Robbie says about the outcome of the grievance that Clemma is sure to file.
Now is the time for the organization to take a stand against violence in their workplace — whether its physical or verbal. No one wants to see another incident like Michelle Price occur again.
Perstein R. Cave
Yes, the grievance system is cumbersome (to both sides), but as a long-time HR manager I know recently noted, management owns the process, not the employee or the union. My personal experience as a former shop steward tends to confirm this statement, so I would guess that the employee who is able to manipulate the grievance process is the exception, however irritable, to the rule. Ditto for an arbitrator who would not uphold a suspension for an employee who hit a co-worker. And frankly, I know a lot of union reps who'd try to get such a person removed too. By the way, it sounds as if Ms. Rogers is not represented by a union, so I'm curious to know what legal advice or support she is getting.
My last comment is directed to those who argue that employees who work directly with the public must be held to the highest standards. I agree, but I would look not just to the frontline worker, but to the administrative and elected leadership as well. More than a few cities and states have been cited by public advocates for systematically misleading clients as regards welfare reform, Medicaid and food stamps. Issues of customer service are not always just administrative, but can also be deeply political, and colored by racial, gender and class bias at all levels.
Charles K. Alexander II
I assume that this grievance board is run by some sort of union organization, which might make your life miserable in turn, but assault is still assault in a civil law case. After three reprimands, regardless of the grievance board's decision, I would go ahead and terminate her employment. Additionally, I would draft a specific anti-violence and bullying policy throughout my department and make it well communicated that that type of behavior will not be tolerated.
Anthony Mauzy Agree or disagree? If you think you have a better way to deal with this month's Manager's Choice dilemma or would like to expand on the approaches presented here, share your thoughts with other readers. Send your solution to mailbox@governing.com. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes). Copyright © 2001, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. |
 |
