Poor time keeping

[BigRed]

..... If you are the boss and you are willing to give a little you actually are getting a lot more...

lot more problems

I am in the situation that we have changed our working hours for factory staff to suit "them" as traffic was their biggest gripe.
So far, so good. The factory guys start 30 minutes earlier and end 30 minutes earlier. Time keeping (so far) has been good and the guys are actually a lot happier. They might have to get up earlier, but they do not face that horrendous traffic jam in the mornings and most miss it in the afternoons.

We have also wanted to do a points system, or no clock no pay or jump up and down screaming and shouting, but end of the day by giving a bit, one can get a lot..

M2CW

[tec0]

I had a scan trough the acts and “as far as I can see� if your system is in the contract you “probably� can fire someone after about 4 warnings. The warnings can be a verbal warning, written warning and final written warning then dismissal. However I would recommend detailed written warnings from the start to facilitate the CCMA in an inquiry.

All you need to do is prove “your point system� is just and consistent and your employees must be notified when they are in the wrong from the get-go. The most important factor here is to be consistent. If the CCMA picks up that you where lenient towards some workers, get ready because it will get ugly.

Just remember to inform all staff of the point system and also get confirmation that they where individually informed and that they understand how the system works and that the rules are made clear to them.

Still this being said: Get a legal buddy or someone to draft the contracts and make sure there are no misunderstandings.

good luck.

[tec0]

I don’t know if this holds any relevancy, however I think it might be a good place to start.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
9. Guidelines in cases of dismissal for poor work performance

1) Any person determining whether a dismissal for poor work performance is unfair should consider-

a) whether or not the employee failed to meet a performance standard; and

b) if the employee did not meet a required performance standard whether or not-

i) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required performance standard;

ii) the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and

iii) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
3. Disciplinary measures short of dismissal

Disciplinary procedures prior to dismissal

1) All employers should adopt disciplinary rules that establish the standard of conduct required of their employees. The form and content of disciplinary rules will obviously vary according to the size and nature of the employer's business. In general, a larger business will require a more formal approach to discipline. An employer's rules must create certainty and consistency in the application of discipline. This requires that the standards of conduct are clear and made available to employees in a manner that is easily understood. Some rules or standards may be so well established and known that it is not necessary to communicate them.

2) The courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them. Efforts should be made to correct employees' behaviour through a system of graduated disciplinary measures such as counselling and warnings.

3) Formal procedures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met. Informal advice and correction is the best and most effective way for an employer to deal with minor violations of work discipline. Repeated misconduct will warrant warnings, which themselves may be graded according to degrees of severity. More serious infringements or repeated misconduct may call for a final warning, or other action short of dismissal. Dismissal should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or repeated offenses.

Dismissals for misconduct

4) Generally, it is not appropriate to dismiss an employee for a first offense, except if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable. Examples of serious misconduct, subject to the rule that each case should be judged on its merits, are gross dishonesty or willful damage to the property of the employer, willful endangering of the safety of others, physical assault on the employer, a fellow employee, client or customer and gross insubordination. Whatever the merits of the case for dismissal might be, a dismissal will not be fair if it does not meet the requirements of section 188.

5) When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty of dismissal, the employer should in addition to the gravity of the misconduct consider factors such as the employee's circumstances (including length of service, previous disciplinary record and personal circumstances), the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself.

6) The employer should apply the penalty of dismissal consistently with the way in which it has been applied to the same and other employees in the past, and consistently as between two or more employees who participate in the misconduct under consideration.

Hope it helps

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

I don’t know if this holds any relevancy, however I think it might be a good place to start.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
9. Guidelines in cases of dismissal for poor work performance

1) Any person determining whether a dismissal for poor work performance is unfair should consider-

a) whether or not the employee failed to meet a performance standard; and

b) if the employee did not meet a required performance standard whether or not-

i) the employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required performance standard;

ii) the employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard; and

iii) dismissal was an appropriate sanction for not meeting the required performance standard.

Labour Relations Act, 1995
Schedule 8: Code of Good Practice: Dismissal
3. Disciplinary measures short of dismissal

Disciplinary procedures prior to dismissal

1) All employers should adopt disciplinary rules that establish the standard of conduct required of their employees. The form and content of disciplinary rules will obviously vary according to the size and nature of the employer's business. In general, a larger business will require a more formal approach to discipline. An employer's rules must create certainty and consistency in the application of discipline. This requires that the standards of conduct are clear and made available to employees in a manner that is easily understood. Some rules or standards may be so well established and known that it is not necessary to communicate them.

2) The courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them. Efforts should be made to correct employees' behaviour through a system of graduated disciplinary measures such as counselling and warnings.

3) Formal procedures do not have to be invoked every time a rule is broken or a standard is not met. Informal advice and correction is the best and most effective way for an employer to deal with minor violations of work discipline. Repeated misconduct will warrant warnings, which themselves may be graded according to degrees of severity. More serious infringements or repeated misconduct may call for a final warning, or other action short of dismissal. Dismissal should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or repeated offenses.

Dismissals for misconduct

4) Generally, it is not appropriate to dismiss an employee for a first offense, except if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable. Examples of serious misconduct, subject to the rule that each case should be judged on its merits, are gross dishonesty or willful damage to the property of the employer, willful endangering of the safety of others, physical assault on the employer, a fellow employee, client or customer and gross insubordination. Whatever the merits of the case for dismissal might be, a dismissal will not be fair if it does not meet the requirements of section 188.

5) When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty of dismissal, the employer should in addition to the gravity of the misconduct consider factors such as the employee's circumstances (including length of service, previous disciplinary record and personal circumstances), the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself.

6) The employer should apply the penalty of dismissal consistently with the way in which it has been applied to the same and other employees in the past, and consistently as between two or more employees who participate in the misconduct under consideration.

Hope it helps

Hmm, I thought this post was going to get some response, most of it seems very emotional and takes a certain standpoint. A bit more on the theory or thinking behind the system.
1. Fisrtly i do not believe in a grace period - a rule or law is a law. If we start adjusting laws or making allowances the consequences are anarchy, disorder and confusion.
2. Secondly I believe firmly, as per some posts, that more appreciation of a job is required.
3. The essence is not to creat a system or way to get dismissal, that is very easy. In fact the very opposite, the idea was to create something that makes a certain allowance for difficulties but without letting it run wild. In other words 5 minutes late could be strictly treated as late and warrant action, the consequences of which would lead to dismissal. However, by the same token if we allow a person to continously be 5 minutes late, with no action, then we are condoning or allowing such late coming. Hence the concept is such that we are making an allowance but it is kept in check, using a measurable, consistent and clear methodology.
The incentivizing is to a certain extent good, my problem is that persons who were always on time may now get benefit, but the previous late comer gets teh same, but I suppose working on a whats past is past concept it makes sense. My preference is to use the disciplinary record in a score carding portion of incentive schemes.

[tec0]

In all honesty if one wishes to implement a strategy where every moment is calculated and measured to perfection, perfection itself becomes a weakness and then the system crashes. Make no mistake if you have a top employee and he or she ended up being late everyday for a month because “something happened” Your policy will force that person out of his or her position.

Not only do you lose a good employee over 5 minutes. Your other employees lose faith in you. And more importantly they will lose faith in themselves. Make no mistake your actions will have consequences that will affect your business and your social structure amongst employees.

See when it comes to one’s job it is hard NOT to take things personal “especially” if it involves your ability to earn money. So don’t kid yourself there is an appreciation for once job. BUT if you are going to act ruthlessly towards the people you employ they will act ruthlessly when you as the boss makes a mistake. And trust me mistakes will be made because we are human and I belief that, that part is not recognized.

[wynn]

Bosses never notice the 100 good things you do they just never forget the one bad thing you did d(<_>)b

[Dave A]

It's called "management by exception." You praise the exceptionally good and berate the bad.

Par is expected - the norm against which everything else is measured - and what you get your pay cheque for.

Is there a problem with that?

[tec0]

No oh great leader we will live and obey... Please do not punish us for our lives are insignificant... mmm... no... See the boss has the upper hand until his workers wise-up. In 1999 an engineering shop closed most unexpectedly.

All 15 workers left the building and the shop remained closed. Some time ago I cannot recall an exact date but I think it was about 7 or 8 years ago. Anyway a big boss of a massif steel company thought he could do whatever he wanted and say whatever he wanted.

Well about 200 people decided it is time for a bit of tuff love. So they broke down the security dors and basically dragged the big boss into the open and he was then introduced to a car tire that was placed around his neck.

He was informed that he was not doing a good job and that his time has come. He was then doused in a liquid. At this point he screamed and begged but his security personnel were hammered by the 200 angry workers so no help came. Well the people left him screaming and begging. After a few hours he resigned and left the company.

I tell this story because bosses think that workers don’t care about their jobs. The truth is however they do care about their jobs. So much so that they were willing to protect it when the unions failed to do so.

Please make no mistake; hard working people don’t stay away from their jobs just because they have excuses. But, when you start pushing for perfection and impossible to keep rules then expect some resistance.

[BigRed]

All valid posts up to now.

Somewhere one has to draw the line though. The danger is if the exception becomes the rule, which I am finding. Once its become the "rule" to break that is a mammoth task which will cause friction throughout the organisation. Hence, certain measures and unfortunately penalties need to be taken.

[Dave A]

No oh great leader we will live and obey... Please do not punish us for our lives are insignificant...

Not insignificant at all, and a good boss will certanly bear that in mind. But a boss is responsible for the collective interests of the employees, and sometimes that carries an individual cost.

mmm... no... See the boss has the upper hand until his workers wise-up.

One hopes the boss is the boss for good reason, in which case that's exactly the way it should be

The danger is if the exception becomes the rule, which I am finding.

Or as I would put it, the required par is considered exceptional - and the perception of "par" slips to "substandard."

I think this really comes down to managing perceptions and expectations. Both need to be kept as close to reality as possible - and this is done by open communication and behaviour that is consistent with that communication.

People aren't stupid and when the boss says "we can't pay more because the company is struggling" and then trades in his Polo for a fancy BMW...

Well, don't be surprised if you lose the staff's trust.