I've gotten two e-mails asking about disciplinary hearings at work. Neither are union members and both work for large companies. The strange thing is, a hearing is being held but the accused isn't allowed to attend.
Now, I realize that companies are not required to hold to the standards that the government must. There is no law (to my non-lawyer knowledge) that requires a company to allow an employee to defend himself. But, please explain why you are bothering to hold a "hearing" without allowing the defended to attend.
One person can submit a written statement, but can't see the written statement that his accuser is submitting. How is that rational? I can accuse a colleague of all sorts of horrible things and since he can't see it, how is he supposed to defend himself?
If you aren't going to allow a defense, why call it a "disciplinary hearing"? Just do the investigation and come to a conclusion. A good investigation sometimes involves talking to the same people more than once.
Somebody help me out and explain this to me because it seems like a bad idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment