Disciplinary actions

The basic assumption is that the individual always has the choice of whether or not to behave in an unsafe manner. The implication of this assumption is that the responsibility for accident prevention ultimately rests with the individual worker. It also implies that as long as management has expended reasonable efforts to persuade an individual to behave responsibly, has provided training in safe methods of work, and has provided appropriate guarding of hazards or personal protection equipment, then it has discharged its responsibilities for accident prevention. If these remedies fail, the only recourse is disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal. 

Having described the underlying philosophy of the traditional approach to accident prevention, we shall now discuss some of the specific methods that are used to implement it, namely motivational campaigns and disciplinary action and consider the evidence for their success. We shall also discuss another frequently employed strategy, the use of safety audits. 

Disciplinary action. The imposing of sanctions on a professional by his or her professional organization for violation of laws or ethical codes. Existentialism. Deep philosophical and spiritual questions about meaning and... 

Sick and personal day policies are unclear. Employees report conflicting and/or confusing policies relating to sick and personal days, which have resulted in numerous misunderstandings about procedures and allowances as well as unfair disciplinary action. 

At Jamestown Senior High, an amazing thing happened. In just one year, student thefts dropped from 55>to1 >, assaults plunged from 52 to 5, and total disciplinary action plummeted from 112 to 42. The dramatic change at Jamestown High was created by the institution of a simple policy, one that should be instituted at middle and high schools nationwide school uniforms. 

Disciplinary action is not part of the investigation. The management system for investigation should ensure that a blame-free policy precluding disciplinary action for honest mistakes is clearly stated and enforced. 

Disciplinary action may be appropriate if malicious or criminal intent is positively identified as a root cause. An example would be when an investigation reveals horseplay, practical jokes, fights, or even sabotage was among the root causes. These activities have no place in any workplace and are especially undesirable in the chemical processing industry. It is most likely that a company s employee handbook, human resources documents, or union contract addresses these situations and communicates the policy in advance of an incident. In short, the investi-... 

Management s charter to the team must include management s expectations for accurately reporting investigation outcomes. However, assigning blame or recommending disciplinary actions should not be part of a team s charter. 

Incident investigations should very rarely result in disciplinary actions. The team should assume that disciplinary actions are not part of the investigative outcome. Even the perceived threat of disciplinary action has detrimental effect on an investigation and may discourage cooperation during interviews. 

Spills are most likely to occur during loading/unloading operations and in-plant transfer activities. For this reason, written procedures should be kept current and made easily accessible to all employees. In addition, a spill response plan should be formulated, and employees should be trained both in the current operating procedures and in the correct implementation of emergency spill measures. A policy of taking disciplinary action on violation, if strictly enforced, can ensure employee adherence to procedure. 

A verbal warning is a formal oral reprimand about the consequences of failing to perform as expected. A manager might verbally warn a technician that she is performing below expectations in regard to tardiness and that if performance is not improved, further disciplinary action may be warranted. Verbal warnings are relatively common and often the only action needed to correct unacceptable employee performance. 

Currently, many pharmacies have an ineffective approach to error reduction. Investigations that occur during the error reporting process tend to focus their attention on the front end or active end of the error such as the front-line practitioner (e.g., a technician preparing a prescription or a pharmacist dispensing the medication). Human nature tends to assign blame to these front-line practitioners involved in medication errors. It is easier and in our nature to blame individuals and resort to familiar solutions disciplinary action, individual remedial education, placing error information... 

Even in the best-managed and highly motivated groups of scientists, there are occasions when disciplinary action will need to be taken with some individual. 

The same procedure will be followed if disciplinary action is required when a person fails to meet the general terms and conditions of employment, outside or beyond personal performance criteria, agreed with the company. 

In many cases disciplinary actions will involve discussion with the relevant trade unions. This will depend on many factors including whether unions enjoy full negotiating or representational rights with the company. In most countries of the EU such rights are enshrined in the Social Chapter but not all countries are signatories to this part of the treaty. Negotiations with trade unions will be lead by the HR function. A Manager needs to be aware of the procedures to be followed within the company and not take unilateral action. 

The investigation of incidents identifies specific individuals as those accountable for the incident. Disciplinary actions are taken to teach people that this is unacceptable behavior. 

The investigation of incidents identifies the specific root causes and contributing causes for incidents. There is less emphasis on identifying the specific individuals responsible. Disciplinary actions are rare but likely if there is a history of repeated occurrences. There is usually a greater amount of explanatory detail in the incident report. There is greater tendency in a fact finding organization to report near-miss as well as minor incident events. 

If we search for culprits to blame using the finger-pointing method Ian Nimmo just described, the investigation process is very simple. As Nimmo just indicated, we identify specific individuals (in this case the chemical process operator) as accountable for the incident. It would be easy to say the operator failed to follow established procedures. Disciplinary actions could result to teach people that this is unacceptable behavior. [3] Using just the first layer approach would be a waste of effort. Such injustice could create an atmosphere encouraging sincere individuals to be less likely to report all the facts. It is probable that we would not find out all the underlying contributors and hence be unable to effectively prevent a repeat of an incident with a 5.5 million (1979) price tag. 

---