Corrective actions
Disciplinary actions do occur at ORNL, and ES&H matters are included
Someone neglects to follow a procedure instituted as a safety practice. An incident follows. Auditors document the oversight and ORNL gets slapped with a notice of violation. There is unfavorable press coverage. Lab management and its customer, DOE, become concerned about Lab safety procedures. And the employee who violated the procedure never gets so much as a slap on the wrist.
If you believe that the last sentence of this scenario is true, you may be one of a number of people who believe that misdeeds often go unaddressed at ORNL—that poor performance and unproductive behavior are tolerated unquestioningly.
ORNL Ethics Officer Steve Stow saw such sentiments emerge from a series of focus groups of hourly, weekly and monthly employees conducted after last year’s corporate ethics survey. In that survey, ORNL and other sector organizations again lagged their peers in areas of management trust and communication.
“The perception is that no one is ever disciplined for anything, and if they are, it’s not done in a fair and equitable fashion.” Stow says. “The perceived lack of discipline emerged in that survey as a root cause of poor showings in morale and management communication.”
Human Resources Director Mike Willard says that, in fact, since LMER was formed in 1996 a number of employees have been disciplined for transgressions ranging from poor attendance to violations of environment, safety and health rules. The perception that discipline never occurs, he says, probably stems from the fact that ORNL’s approach to employee discipline is to correct undesirable behavior—“positive discipline”—and that actions are usually kept confidential between the employee and management. Other employees rarely see any follow-up.
That is about to change. Human Resources has begun posting on its Web home page a summary of disciplinary actions based on the category of offense and type of discipline. It’s a sign, Willard says, that Lab management takes its responsibility for administering employee discipline seriously and will not hesitate to take appropriate corrective actions when the situation calls for discipline. And proper conduct with regard to ES&H is an important element in employee discipline.
Ethics’ Stow notes, “This is one visible response from ORNL management to the suggestions coming from the focus groups; other actions will follow.”
Since Jan. 1, 1996, under ORNL’s positive discipline program, 110 employees have been disciplined for transgressions in the categories of attendance, conduct, performance and ES&H. Sixteen have lost jobs. The rest received oral or written reminders or were sent home “to think about it.” On a per-capita basis, salaried employees receive more disciplinary actions than hourly employees. ORNL Labor Relations Manager Gerald Watson agrees that safety has received increased attention as a disciplinary matter in recent years.
“We’ve put more emphasis on ES&H as a separate category of positive discipline,” Watson says. “These health and safety-related issues range from violation of fall protection and lockout-tagout requirements to improper use of personal protective equipment and reckless driving.
“A recent lockout-tagout violation was taken to the Lab director. It was that serious.”
Disciplinary actions normally follow a progression from oral to written reminders, then to decision-making leave (DML) and finally, if the behavior is not corrected, termination. However, depending upon the severity and circumstances involved, any of the steps of discipline, up to and including termination, may be administered for a first offense.
DML, a day off work with pay, is meant as a wake-up call and a time for contemplation. It is accompanied by a one-year probationary period.
“Employees are told, ‘Here is the condition of your employment; you will abide by the rules.’ When they come back, they meet with management and report that they’ve made a commitment to comply, which is a requirement for continued employment,” Watson says. “Some do express contrition. Some are remorseful. Some say they don’t need that day off.”
Thirty-two employees have received DMLs since 1996.
A common perception has been that discipline was aligned with inappropriate behavior and not poor performance. In fact, the positive discipline process applies to conduct (as in inappropriate behavior), attendance, ES&H violations and poor performance.
Terminations have resulted for repeated violations and for serious first-time offenses such as willful violation of company rules. Abusing the Web by downloading pornography, for instance, might be the most well-known reason for termination. Employees also have lost good jobs for theft of government property. Working another job while on sick or short-term medical leave is considered intent to defraud and a very serious matter. And there are stiff actions for sexual harassment. “That’ll get you into trouble really quick,” Watson says.
“The focus is on correction,” says Willard. “It’s to get the employee’s attention. ‘Don’t continue this behavior.’
“People see cases of things happening, but they may not always be aware that the individual involved might have received a written reminder or a DML. From now on, in addition to posting the summary of disciplinary actions on the Web for information purposes, employees who register concerns will receive notification that appropriate disciplinary action has been taken in resolution of their concerns.
“The purpose of positive discipline is not to put people in stocks in the town square,” Willard says. “Our purpose is to correct undesirable behavior and make better employees.”—B.C.
There are several sites on ORNL’s internal Web related to discipline.
|
