Skip to main content

Employee Refuses To Sign Disciplinary Notice/Performance Improvement Plan...Now What?


A few weeks ago, a co-worker approached me with a question about what to do about another employee that refused to sign a performance improvement plan.  As a bit of background, this co-worker oversees a team of several other employees and noticed that one particular member of this team had a performance record that was lacking.  A performance improvement plan was drafted and the employee was asked to sign it.  However, the employee apparently refused to do so and my co-worker was left wondering...what now?

While this resource is not the definitive guide to the topic and not intended to serve as legal advice (those experiencing a similar situation should consult their HR representative and/or employment law attorney for guidance), it provides a framework that can be referred to when needed.


Disciplinary Notice/Performance Improvement Plan Issued

Let us start at the beginning.  The employer or supervisor issues an employee a disciplinary notice, performance improvement plan, or related document in regard to that employee's violation of company policy, poor work performance, etc.  While some employers issue these notices or plans verbally in a meeting, I would suggest putting something in writing to properly document things.  (Remember, if an employer is being proactive, it is important to create a written record of an employee's job performance in the event litigation arises at a later date).

Employers should then ask the employee to sign the document acknowledging they received it.  Many HR experts suggest putting a signature box at the end of the document, with a clear separation between the disciplinary notice/performance improvement plan and where the employee would actually sign.  Other HR advisers also advise that employers provide an area (again, separate from the disciplinary notice/performance improvement plan and signature area) for the employee to write a rebuttal.  A rebuttal can serve several purposes:  1) it can indirectly prove that the employee knew of the discipline/performance plan and 2) the rebuttal can make an employer aware of potential issues the employer would need to investigate (such as harassment claims).


The Employee Refuses To Sign

Now we are getting to the meat of this whole post.  Some employees may refuse to sign the document for a handful of reasons.  The employer then has several options:

  • The employer could disregard the entire matter, not require the employee sign the document, and sweep the matter under the rug.  However, this practice lessens any impact a disciplinary notice/performance improvement plan actually has.  If employees know they can refuse to sign and the employer will disregard the matter, what is the point of going through with actually writing a disciplinary notice/performance improvement plan??
  • Another option is to actually approach the employee and ask them directly why they will not sign.  Perhaps the employee forgot, misplaced the document, or did not realize the employer required their signature.  Open lines of communication are always key.
  • In addition, the employer could have another employee (such as a manager) serve as a witness.  With the witness present, the employer could have the employee acknowledge that the employer reviewed the disciplinary notice/performance plan but the employee refused to sign.  The employer and witness could then sign a document that indicates the date the matter was discussed with the employee and the employee's refusal to sign the document.  (Have you picked up on how important written documentation of these sort of matters are?)
  • One other option is to terminate an employee that refuses to sign the document.  However, many in the HR field have cautioned this can backfire, unnecessarily escalate the matter, and expose the employer to increased unemployment taxes (if the employee filed for unemployment compensation).  While some employers might like this hard nosed tactic of terminating employees in these situations, I would advise treading lightly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...