Case study - "Improving Performance Through a Progressive Discipline Policy
Simon Ouellet, former president of the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario, was recruited by Fantom Technologies to be vice president of HR. Fantom is a manufacturer of state-of-the-art floor care products based in
southern Ontario.
One of the first issues he faced in his new job was an unacceptable absenteeism rate. There were about 250 employees on the 3 assembly lines, operating 2 shifts a day. The average employee was absent 13 or 14 days a year. The benchmark for other manufacturing sites was 8 or 9 days. Simon calculated that Fantom was employing between 30 and 35 extra people to
cover absences. This hurt the bottom line.
A related problem was punctuality. Employees were habitually 5 or 10 minutes late on their shifts. In a white-collar environment with flextime, this would not have been as critical. But tardiness in this situation meant that the assembly line could not operate and that the other employees on the three lines were forced to remain idle.
The solution was to develop a system of progressive discipline. Simon prepared a simple two-page policy. Page 1 dealt with culpable absenteeism-the behaviour in the control of employees, such as arriving late, leaving work without permission, calling in sick but playing golf, and so on. Page 2 dealt with legitimate or innocent absences. Simon met with the unions and notified them that this policy would come into effect as of December 1998. All employees started at zero absences at this time.
The policy assumed that all absences were innocent. However, if an employee was absent 5 times in a 12-month period, the supervisor met with that employee to express concern over the absences and to identify any need for counselling or assistance. The goal of the meeting was to express legitimate concerns, reinforce that the employee was needed, and ensure that the employee accepted responsibility for managing his or her own attendance. Following this meeting, if the employee had fewer than two absences in the ensuing six months, the employee was no longer part of the program. However, if the absence pattern continued, the employee was counselleda second and third time. If no improvements resulted, a level 4 employment status review was conducted. This was done on a case-by-case basis. For example, a frequently absent employee with 28 years of good service would be treated differently from another employee with the same absenteeism record but only 2 years of employment.
The results were impressive. About 70 employees entered the program. Of these, 8 to 10 advanced to step 2, 2 to step 3, and none to step 4. The absenteeism rate dropped to an average of fewer than 10 days, and punctuality was no longer an issue. Labour costs were reduced because itmeant that 20 fewer employees were needed.
Questions
1. "The policy assumed that all absences were innocent." What do you think this means?
2. Do you think the application of the policy would be affected if the absences were due to a disability as defined in the Human Rights Code?
3. The policy was active as of December 1998, and all employees were treated equally from that date, regardless of their previous absen-teeism records. Was this fair?
4. Could a policy of this type be developed to manage student punctuality and absenteeism?