responding to written warning

MrRedundant

laurenjs88 wrote: »

Dont really get what your problem is, ive asked for some adivce how to reply to something thats not the case. you can spout off as much BS as you like however you dont know my OH or the HR manager or the company so I will take your opinion as much like your username.

I have got the advice that I was after so thanks to those MSE'rs we will deal with it accordingly.

:beer:

Why?

Do you not like the truth? The fact is the warning is entirely just. Tbh I'm amazed they let it get this far and would have packed him out the door before the 1 year mark like most competent HR managers.

Bangton

I'm just wondering what happened when he was given this written warning? Was a meeting held where they handed him the warning to look over and discuss the points OR was it handed to him to mull over in his own time?
I assume its the latter and I think a key thing when 'disciplining' a member of staff is that a meeting takes place to go through and discuss issues and discover potential root causes.
For example you mention his doctor is investigating why he is frequently ill - so, it seems to me that he has recognised there is a problem and is trying to act on this. Who knows there may be an underlining problem...I think the company need to be hearing his side of the story as a matter of course.
Some of the responses on here are a bit harsh really. ALL your points are relevant. If other members of staff are stressed within the company then there is a problem. Yes, it possibly has nothing to do with your OH's written warning but his peers give a good indication of failings within a company's practices.
As someone who is managerial level (but reports into someone higher also!!) I very much live by the philosophy that - your late, so you make it back. If that means working over at the end of the day or taking half an hr lunches so be it. In that sense I don't record lateness because people have done their hours and being that it is an office job and we are not servicing customers it works for us. I'm not sure what your OH does but is it possible he could stay 10 mins over if he is 10 mins late? ( and make it clear he has done so)
In terms of the snow - I think he made a valiant effort if what you say is true. I was 3hrs late on some occasions (and didn't make it back! Tut tut!) Surely safety comes first in snow....to imply tardiness because of that seems harsh.
Overall if no disciplinary meeting has been set (and this is a form of discipline) he could ask if he can discuss further and share his concerns in a calm, professional way. That way he can give his side of the story and also show that he is taking on board some of the feedback provided in the letter.
AND finally to put this McDonalds thing to rest I am assuming you'd been out to get the food and left the drinks in the car which he wandered out to get - and then was caught by his boss following a period of absence (although a non working day)?
Well really - he's hardly gone out clubbing! Although admittedly if he looked 'well' I might be wondering....

lucylucky

Bangton wrote: »

I'm just wondering what happened when he was given this written warning? Was a meeting held where they handed him the warning to look over and discuss the points OR was it handed to him to mull over in his own time?
I assume its the latter and I think a key thing when 'disciplining' a member of staff is that a meeting takes place to go through and discuss issues and discover potential root causes.
For example you mention his doctor is investigating why he is frequently ill - so, it seems to me that he has recognised there is a problem and is trying to act on this. Who knows there may be an underlining problem...I think the company need to be hearing his side of the story as a matter of course.
Some of the responses on here are a bit harsh really. ALL your points are relevant. If other members of staff are stressed within the company then there is a problem. Yes, it possibly has nothing to do with your OH's written warning but his peers give a good indication of failings within a company's practices.
As someone who is managerial level (but reports into someone higher also!!) I very much live by the philosophy that - your late, so you make it back. If that means working over at the end of the day or taking half an hr lunches so be it. In that sense I don't record lateness because people have done their hours and being that it is an office job and we are not servicing customers it works for us. I'm not sure what your OH does but is it possible he could stay 10 mins over if he is 10 mins late? ( and make it clear he has done so)
In terms of the snow - I think he made a valiant effort if what you say is true. I was 3hrs late on some occasions (and didn't make it back! Tut tut!) Surely safety comes first in snow....to imply tardiness because of that seems harsh.
Overall if no disciplinary meeting has been set (and this is a form of discipline) he could ask if he can discuss further and share his concerns in a calm, professional way. That way he can give his side of the story and also show that he is taking on board some of the feedback provided in the letter.
AND finally to put this McDonalds thing to rest I am assuming you'd been out to get the food and left the drinks in the car which he wandered out to get - and then was caught by his boss following a period of absence (although a non working day)?
Well really - he's hardly gone out clubbing! Although admittedly if he looked 'well' I might be wondering....

In terms of dealing with a written warning sticking to the relevant facts is very important not what the situation might be or appear to be with other members of staff. The written warning should of course be issued after a disciplinary meeting which would have allowed all parties to state their side of any case. If this is not the case then there is something wrong with the companies procedures and this should be challenged.
You may well have a policy of not reporting lateness, however it appears that the OP's OH's company does. Also this was not a one off but appears to be a sustained problem. I didn't see the post commenting about snow and safety however if there was a genuine safety issue I would expect that to have been mentioned, although I do find it hard to believe that here would have been 8 safety issues.

I still don't understand the McDonalds scenario at all. I don't see why is was commented on at all by anyone, but if it is not mentioned in the letter it is irrelevant anyway.