HR Confession #2 - Someone Lost a Head Today

Someone lost a head today - literally.

A few years back, my department of two gave me an "Ashes of Problem Employees" jar for my birthday. At first it was only a conversation piece, for a while it hid our chocolate, and then it became our stress relief. Since OSHA, Safety Officers and cleaning services alike do not take well to fires in their buildings, we had to come up with something else to relieve our stress. So, and I am not really sure where this came from - Amy?!, we began to cut out paper people. Remember the chain of paper dolls you made when you were in grade school? Yes, those are the ones. Now, how many of you remember how to make the paper people? Not only make them, but make them in a chain? Hint: It is all about the folds.

When things got a bit tense with a particular person, we would take a paper person, detach him/her from the group and rip their head off. Both head and body were ceremoniously deposited into the jar. If you look in my jar you will see a paper person with my name on it deposited there by a team leader a few years ago. Seemed like it just wasn't right for him to take one of my paper people, put my name on it and cut off my head, but a little voice, my better judgement, told me it was probably not the time to inform him of that. I keep that person in there to remind me that things go both ways, that yes, I can drive people crazy too and that I need to know when I do.

Heads roll in fun and as a way to relieve the stress of a moment. So, someone may have lost a head today but the relationship was spared and we understand each other a little bit better. Isn't that what it is all about?

Dear Intern

Dear Intern, you had your first third step grievance meeting yesterday. So, how'd that go for you? I understand that the grievance may be upheld. I am hearing that you are concerned about the impact on you . . . .let's talk about it.

First and foremost, there is absolutely no impact on my assessment of you or of your performance. The foundation of the grievance was selection for a position. An external candidate was selected for a position over internal candidates because in the selecting official's determination, the internal candidates did not meet the qualifications for the position. When grieved, we responded to support management's right to select the most qualified person for the position. The reviewer feels that there was at least one internal candidate who could have done the job well. If that is the case, then yes, the Union is correct and first rights to the position should go to the internal candidate. If that is the case, then yes, I support the decision to uphold the grievance and grant remedy to the employee.

What happened? Technically, the process was lock-step by the book. We asked the questions we needed to ask many different ways and when the answers were consistent, we proceeded. Unfortunately, it turns out that management's position was not as strong as we had hoped. Listen to me when I say this . . . the case was not weakened by the arguments used, the defense prepared or anyone's comments in the actual meeting. The case was weak because the foundations were weak.  

I was prepared for a challenge to our technical defenses. Management's interpretation differed from the Union's and that is why we have a grievance process. What I was not prepared for was the Union's assertion that the selecting official told them that she would have taken one of the internal candidates, that this candidate could have done the job. If that is the case, the selecting official changed her story and brought into question the very foundation of the issue at hand.

So, what is there to learn from this?  I am not one to fight a losing battle for the fight itself. Our ability to select the most qualified person for a position is an issue that is worth taking on and one that I, and you, will take on again. For me, and I hope for you, the learning from this case is to make sure we know absolutely everything we possibly can and to push back, challenge, and question until we feel that we do and to not let any question be left unanswered. We must do so to be fair and equitable to our employees.

What about the selecting official? If in fact she changed her story, I will hold her accountable for her actions. If she did not and the Union President was not forthright, he too will be held accountable.

What about you? You did well in your first grievance, especially stepping into it midstream. The way I see it is if an employee was wronged and the grievance process corrected it, we all won.