Disciplinarily Process Essay

IntroductionThe subprogram of this report is to provide the background and reasons why the lasts by uninfected execution Australia were made in surface-to-air missiles favour. It identifies argonas the social club needs to calculate and implement in order to prevent this type of situation from occurring again. draw History as surface-to-air missiles Team ManagerAs surface-to-air missiles Team Manager I was aware that my predecessors response when dealing with her lacked in encouragement and was curtly handled. surface-to-air missile is a mobile worker however, due to the company changing programming language to integrity surface-to-air missile was unfamiliar with she has been un adequate to meet specific deadlines. Time was spend with surface-to-air missile trying to understand her issues and Resources relocated in order to appropriate Sam extra meter until she was confident and competent using the refreshful programming language.The offer of additional training was mad e , but no specific timelines for a performance review to discuss progress on meeting the required standard of performance were given. During the final meeting with Sam about her inability to meet her latest deadline, Sam physically strike myself and left the office.A Medical security measures was sent to the office the pursuit daylight, advising Sam was unfit for work due to stress. The receipt of this medical certificate was confirmed over the phone by Sam, to the HR part and material body made that it had been authenticated and filed accordingly. It was then the next day that the incident was report by myself to my supervisor.A meeting was held with myself, my supervisor and the HR Department, the result was that Sam would be terminated on the basis of serious fluff.. A earn was sent by registered mail to Sams personal address. It was ii days later that the unfair spark claim was filed by Sam with bonny work Australia.Fair Work Australia HearingThe outcome of the Fair Work Australia hearing between the company and Sam went in Sams favor, this was due to insufficient evidence and backing provided by the company regarding Sams dismissal, on the basis of serious mis cover. See connect Risk Analysis (Appendix 1) for Mitigation/Contingencies on Areas of lay on the line for this chemise. The hearing was awarded in Sams favour because of the followers lawsuit * There was no musket ball disciplinary process.* There was no simple investigation carried out on the act of bumble. * There was insufficient documentation of claims of employee meetings and reviews. * The medical certificate given to the company by Sam in its original form was not produced by the company for the hearing. * Sam was able to produce a certified copy of the medical certificate as well as email correspondence between herself and the sympathetic Resources department confirming the companies receipt of the medical certificate. * No records or documents of any meetings or coac hing sessions were kept by our company. * No evidence of signed, agreed upon and documented performance caution reviews or plans were presented by the company* No established disciplinary process followed, allowing for an investigation in the lead up to Sams dismissal. * There was no evidence proving the fumble claim had interpreted place or witnesses to call upon to verify the incident. * During meetings where Sam was warned of poor performance, on that point were no members of major(postnominal) precaution present or human election department specialists. * There were no documented written warnings in Sams file, any agreements made between myself and Sam were verbal. Thus no evidence to support the claim of misconduct by Sam.Proposed Company dodging for defense against unfair dismissal claimsFor the company in future to successfully defend itself against unfair dismissal claims should there be a case of serious misconduct of an employee it needs to ensure it brings its per formance worry mapping and staff professional development in line with Australian legislation, Fair Work Australia Act 2009 Small business fair dismissal (See appendage 2 for website links)By ensuring the company has a clear concise arrange for performance management and professional development that is documented and filed and reviewed accordingly should employee misconduct occur there is clear evidence of the employees history with the company, management and Human Resources department and the events leading up to the case of misconduct.The company needs to conduct Monthly performance reviews on all staff ensuring that agendas are used and meetings following the reviews are documented and filed according and if poor performance is a topic on the agenda senior management and a human resources specialist is attendance. Decisions made in performance management reviews are to be documented and conducted using the recommended template (see appendix 3)Should the employee solace no t meet expectations as agreed upon in Performance reviews the following steps need to be followed and all actions taken need to keep up with legislation (Fair work Australia Act 2009 Small business fair dismissal) as set by Fair Work Australia.Proposed Company Strategy for Employee misconductThe company needs to review its policy on what is deemed as employee misconduct and the consequences of employee misconduct, the review of this policy needs to be done by senior management and the Human Resources Department making sure the policy and consequences are clear, concise and in line with legislation as set by Fair Work Australia.The below procedure should be followedConclusionBy completing a review of company policies and procedures regarding Performance Reviews and Employee misconduct (and the consequences), implementing rig documentation (templates) and storage the company and staff will have a clear understanding of individual staff performance, and legal documentation.Recommend ationBy implementing a structured Review process for all staff, and reviewing the companies policy on misconduct. Staff performance is recorded, plans/goals set and agreed upon by staff and management and reviewed by the Human Resources Department.In the case of Sams dismissal the recommendation would have been to follow the following steps At the time of the assault it should have been reported to senior management straight out and Human Resources Department notified immediately. An incident/accident report made and an investigation initiated. The authorities should have been notified and a disciplinary hearing conducted with the conclusion/decision of Sams termination being verbally notified with a formal letter of termination given to Sam. This should have been done the same day and a soon as possible following the incident.