Corrective Action

Thank you for updating this policy. In the past, the minimum corrective action practice seemed to be MOU >> Verbal Warning >> First Written >> Second Written >> Termination. With the Level 1 >> Level 2 >> Level 3, there seems to be one less step? Would I be correct in saying the new minimum corrective action process would be MOU, verbal, or other >> First Written >> Second Written >> Termination.

Also, where in Level 1 it says "training, coaching, MOU, or verbal," does that mean that if I trained an employee on an issue and documented that training, I could move directly to Level 2 (and consultation with ER)? Or would I be encouraged by ER to take another step within Level 1 (such as issuing an MOU and a verbal warning)? If so, that would be unclear (and would look more similar to the process I outlined in my first question, paragraph 1).

The policy doesn't contain or reference procedures for working with Employee Relations, but it seems to be a key component of the updated policy, which I support. How do I work with the employee relations team? What timeline should I expect when working with them?

Where "Informal Procedure" and "Grievance Procedure" are noted, there isn't a link to the policy. I noted that the "Employee Grievance" procedure under review links over to this "Corrective Action" when needed. Can this referral link be added here?

I also really appreciate the clarity on when to work with Employee Relations!

"Egregious conduct." is too broad and subjective. "Shockingly bad" could be read that way by different people differently. What about conduct that would be considered egregious by professional standards of behavior" or something like that.

In the "Corrective Action for Employees Within the Probationary Period" it needs to state that faculty follow the Academic Freedom policy, not employees policy (because we're technically on probation for six years). This is why the previous version specified "Staff" I note that procedures for termination for FT faculty are noted later, but this should also apply here.

I don't support the "no cause" firing of part-time employees. That's terrible for morale. Shouldn't we respect our part-time employees more? Everyone can be on the probationary period, but after that, more respect is warranted.

I dont support firing Administrative at-will employees without cause or without prior correction either. What's the goals here? To destabilize your entire workforce? This surely doesn't create a sense of collegiality in the college.

Basically, this revision looks like: everyone except faculty and full-time staff can be fired at anytime for no cause. This is very destabilizing and brings the worst of corporate America into higher education without the commensurate raise in wages to take that risk. We get paid less for more secure employment. Why would people stay at the college and take the lower pay if we are just as subject to getting axed as those in private industry? Where's the benefit? I think this is wrong headed.

I think that making the different levels of corrective action more flexible (so they don't have to be progressive) is fine, but to take away the requirement to have cause to fire someone after probation is going too far.

By not allowing formal greivance procedures until Level 3, the employee is essentially set up to fail. It also opens up the likelihood that workplace bullying by supervisors will occur. This also opens the college's risk of workplace based lawsuits. At a minimum, employees should have the right to the formal grievance procedure at Level 2 and preferably Level 1. Otherwise their is no transparency to PWC as to what kind of disciplinary actions are happening in a department. And since Level 2 actions could affect benefits and compensation increases, employees should have the ability for recourse.

4.F: In general, it might be helpful to reiterate that corrective action does not have to be a progressive process.

4.F.1: It would be helpful to clarify who manages the potential records that could be created. From a records management perspective level 1 corrective action could produce records depending on the action taken. MOEs would be included in the personnel file as "performance plans and evaluations." The others, training and coaching could also create records that someone would need to manage.

4.F.2: It would be helpful to clarify who manages these records. From a records management perspective level 2 corrective action would be included in the personnel file likely as "performance plans and evaluations" or "employment history records" which includes final actions taken as a result of disciplinary action.

4.F.3.e: There aren't definitions for Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOIT) or Notice of Termination (NOT). It would be helpful to have those defined since the NOIT is a requirement before proceeding with a NOT when terminating full-time staff.

4.F.3.e.2: The definition of "notice" in the personnel definitions states that notices can be delivered electronically, in person, or by mail. Is there an expected or preferred delivery method? For example, if I were a confrontation avoidant supervisor, could I just email a NOIT to my full-time direct report and not speak to them about it?

4.F.3.e.3: Is there a timeframe for when the supervisor must decide to move forward with a notice of termination?

4.F.3.g: This potentially doesn't align with records management. If a NOIT has been given to an employee, then it becomes a part of the personnel file and can only be amended, not removed.

The updated Corrective Action policy may require clarification to ensure alignment with GPS performance ratings.

Supervisors may initiate Level One corrective action- including coaching, training, verbal warnings, or a Memorandum of Expectations (MOE) -without prior consultation with Employee Relations, though consultation and templates remain available. Level One corrective action is limited to the informal grievance process.
Additional guidance would support supervisors in determining when an MOE aligns with a "Performing" rating versus when a "Needs Improvement" rating is appropriate. An MOE may be suitable for employees rated Performing when addressing minor performance concerns or clarifying expectations and does not, on its own, require a Needs Improvement rating. A Needs Improvement rating should be reserved for ongoing or significant performance issues or formal corrective action.

Clear guidance, standardized tools, and optional consultation with Employee Relations would help ensure consistent application across supervisors and alignment between corrective action and GPS ratings.

In response to my colleague's comments, I want to respectfully offer an alternative view. If we make every level of corrective action open to grievance, then nothing can ever reasonably be done. If I can't even have a conversation (and followup memo constituting level 1) about my expectations for a job without that being grieved, then I think it becomes an unsupervisable situation. Most of my actions have to do with dealing with complaints by employees about other employees along with requests from those employees that I do something to address behavior. Please consider what happens when a supervisor can't address work place concerns without having those turn into contested matters. The fact that supervisors are required to disclose and work with PWC provides the protection against bullying which I agree is not something we want. I understand the impulse to protect our colleagues from poor treatment, but in my opinion making every corrective action a grievable matter would not accomplish that outcome.

"Full-time SLTC faculty members are outlined in the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibly and Tenure Policy" This policy does not address SLTC faculty specifically. Appendix 5 of the handbook which is specific to SLTC refers employees back to this policy.
The Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure Policy does out line corrective action related to performance for FT faculty. However, this is on performance only and should not prevent corrective action though this policy for faculty who demonstrate conduct in other areas such as excessive absence, falsification of college documents, insubordination, etc. (4.B). This ties into the statement lower in this section "Tenured and tenured-track faculty members may also serve in administrative at-will Their employment in the administrative at-will position may be terminated pursuant to this policy. Their employment as a faculty member cannot be terminated without following the process specified in the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure Policy" If the need for termination is tied to issues that are not directly performance related removal from at-will but continued as faculty will allow these situations to continue. For example, this wording would disallow the college from terminating a tenured faculty working as an AD who shows up to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or sexually solicits an employee or student. I would argue that the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsivity and Tenure policy should address performance specific issues and other items should be addressed directly under the corrective actions policy.