Staff of the NPF, Canadian Forces Serving Those Who ServeÀ votre service Personnel des FNP, Forces canadiennes Discipline and Performance PSP Mgrs Meeting,

Staff of the NPF, Canadian Forces

Serving Those Who Serve À votre service

Personnel des FNP, Forces canadiennes

Discipline and Performance

PSP Mgrs Meeting, 4 May 2011

Sonja Gonsalves

National Manager, Labour Relations

STAFF OF THE NON-PUBLIC FUNDS, CANADIAN FORCESPERSONNEL DES FONDS NON PUBLICS, FORCES CANADIENNES

Financial Administration Act• Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces

is the Employer• Separate agency in the Federal Public

Administration (Schedule V of FAA)• FAA provides authority for HR Management• Includes authority to address performance,

impose discipline and terminate employment• Must be for cause


Discipline vs. Performance Management• When to use each?

– Performance Management (Admin Warning)• Incompetence, lack of knowledge, skill, ability or competence

– Discipline• Conduct, include conduct relating to performance of duties• Intent is not required for it to be misconduct, only knowledge that

action or inaction was not what is expected of them at the time of the incident

• Why the difference?– Effectiveness– Test of cause


Questions to ask• Why did the employee not do it properly?• Does the employee know how to do this?• Have I seen him/her do this properly before? • Have I ever seen the employee perform at the

level required? • Has his/her performance deteriorated?


Other clues• What would need to occur for the employee to

do things properly in the future?• Can I identify a skill, knowledge, ability that the

employee is lacking? • Can I identify training that the employee needs

in order to do the work required?


Other considerations• How long will reasonably it take for the employee to acquire

the skill needed (if immediate and ongoing is reasonable expectation – likely misconduct).

• Learning how to do something (incompetence) is different from failing to follow a policy, forgetting to check or use a reference tool (misconduct).

• Not doing something or not trying to do something (misconduct) is different from trying but not knowing how to do it (incompetence).

• Many times there will be elements of both – need to identify the root cause of the problem in order to determine best way ahead – sometimes both are done simultaneously.


Example 1

2 employees are in an escalating conflict which is witnessed by the Supervisor.

Supervisor 1: Not sure what do to, decides it’s better not to do anything at this time

Supervisor 2: Not sure what to do, attempts to resolve the conflict as best as he/she can, but employs ineffective methods


Example 2

Employee is dealing with a very difficult client who is being rude and disrespectful

Employee 1: tries to calm the client down, but employs ineffective techniques

Employee 2: is upset by the client and responds by addressing the client in the same rude and disrespectful manner


Example 3

Employee is responsible for entering data in a budget spreadsheet

Employee 1: Does not understand the spreadsheet and puts the data in the wrong cells and puts the wrong data in the spreadsheet

Employee 2: Understands the spreadsheet but accidentally makes typos/inputting errors when inputting the proper information in the spreadsheet


Performance Management• verbal counselling, verbal guidance and

feedback• additional training (employer selected and

imposed, not optional)• performance review form/pre-admin

warnings/performance concerns letters• performance improvement plan – Administrative

Warning• termination for incompetence


Administrative Warning• Formal notice of performance improvement plan and potential

of termination• Requires training (OJT, formal)• Requires reasonable timetable• Regular feedback meetings: Get employee’s perception of

things too. Be open to new ideas, ways to doing things to get the desired performance, so long as they don’t impact operational success/needs.

• Keep notes with examples of observations, documentation. • Leave employee room to fail or succeed!


Discipline

Natural justice/procedural fairness:• Situation must be examined in a timely manner,

fairly and objectively• Employee is made aware of allegations against

him/her and the relevant evidence (including who said what) and is given a chance to respond, with assistance if desired, before an objective decision is made


Discipline process

2 steps• Investigation• Disciplinary Hearing/Meeting


Investigation• Required in all cases of potential misconduct• Formality will depend on nature and complexity of

allegations of misconduct• HRM and PSP HQ there for guidance• Goal – find out what happened (we will never know the

whole story) and collect evidence that proves what happened

• Remember that evidence/investigation findings will be needed in the event the case ends up before a third party


Investigation (cont’d)• Start with what you have been given initially• Organize your investigation• Meet with witnesses and get their version of the facts• Collect evidence• Meet with employee at least once during the investigation to review

the allegations and evidence with the employee and get his/her side of the story (with union rep) – go back as new evidence if uncovered after meeting with the employee• Why? Fairness, helps prep ER case, may negate need for

hearing/meeting• Ensure investigation is complete before finalizing


Tips • Keep copies of all documents/evidence• Keep your investigation/evidence organized• When meeting with witnesses, ask open ended questions only (no

leading questions)• Let witnesses tell their story and probe for expansion of relevant

portions (if you are not sure if it is relevant or not, probe anyway)• Get witness statements/validation of relevant witness testimony• Review/question/challenge what you have as you proceed to ensure

investigation is complete• BE mindful of tendency to seek confirming evidence and not

disproving evidence


Disciplinary Hearing/Meeting• Will be waived when not necessary (i.e. when the requirements of

natural justice/procedural fairness were met during the investigation)• Choice depends on contentiousness of facts and complexity of

evidence• ER rep is “prosecutor” – responsible for proving ER case (present

evidence, witness questioning, cross examination, redirect)• Chair is “judge” – responsible for ensuring he/she understands both

versions of the case presented• HRM – there to provide guidance to both chair and ER rep, can call

breaks and give advice as needed to ensure process is defendable and ER interests are protected


Tips (general)• Goal is to ensure a fair examination of allegations and evidence• Employee must be given a chance to fully respond (with assistance)• Employee and employee rep should be allowed to speak and fully

present their case• Make the process as informal as possible while ensuring the

evidence is fairly and properly examined• Take notes• Ensure everything is examined during the hearing/meeting (nothing

can be presented afterwards or outside of the hearing)• Break and reconvene if you need to


Tips for ER rep (prosecutor) • Know your theory of the case (what do you believe occurred) and ensure

that this is what you present• Restrict evidence to current allegations (avoid discussing previous history

unless it’s to respond to contradictory information about the past)• Make sure you fully present your case• Make sure your evidence to backs up your theory• Respond to employee’s evidence, particularly if/where it contradicts your

theory of the case or where your evidence contradicts what the employee is saying

• BE prepared (both for ER case and to respond to EE case – remember the employee’s response during the investigation)

• Keep things simple• Listen to your HRM’s input (second set of eyes and ears)• TAKE BREAKS, REGROUP, SEEK ADVICE


Tips for Chair (judge)• Let the parties tell their story/present their case in full• Let the ER and EE rep (or employee) question witnesses• Ask for confirming/supporting evidence to support submissions• Ask questions only to ensure you understand what is being

submitted• Avoid doing the job of the ER or EE rep• Avoid conducting your own investigation• Keep things simple• Listen to the HRM’s input (they are experts in the process)• TAKE BREAKS, REGROUP, SEEK ADVICE


Closure of hearing/meeting • Chair decides culpability in his/her report• Chair includes all aggravating and mitigating circumstances in

his/her report• Manager with the appropriate Delegation of HR Authority decides

disciplinary action, if applicable, and confirms this in writing in his/her decision letter

• If Chair is the Manager with appropriate HR Delegation of Authority, the hearing/meeting report and decision letter are combined into a single letter

• In order to ensure national consistency, Manager should seek guidance on appropriate discipline from HRM (and PSP HQ)

• Only formal disciplinary action will go on employee’s file and forms part of permanent employee record (unless employee is unionized)

Staff of the NPF, Canadian Forces Serving Those Who ServeÀ votre service Personnel des FNP, Forces canadiennes Discipline and Performance PSP Mgrs Meeting,

Documents

forces canadiennes example

forces canadiennes questions

nonpublic funds

spreadsheet slide

disrespectful employee

incompetence slide

employee needs

employee room