Employee Interviews

In Need Of Advice

A manager is meeting with each employee in his/her department. If an employee does not feel comfortable meeting with him/her alone because of some questionable circumstances (past behaviour) would it be acceptable for that employee to request some one else be present for the interview or evaluation.

Hatchetman

There are two answers.

Given your description of the meeting, if the employee has reason to believe that disciplinary action may result from that meeting then the employee has a right for a "representative" to particpate.

If the meeting is just to discuss work instructions and assignments, then no such right exists. The opton of then having another person present is really up to the manager or employer.

My advice to supervisors and managers is that unless there is something highly unusual about the nature of the discussion, let th eemplyee brign a witness to observe -- not to participate (if th manager wants, he or she can have some one from HR as well, or another sueprvisor or manager.) If allowing hte emplyee ot have some one observe will re-assure the emplyee that there is no "problem" and that the manager can get the employee's compliance with the goals of the meeting, then every body wins. I don't see, in most situations, that there would be a big problem.

I realize that many supervisors and managers will say that they want control of the meeting, that they don't want an "outsider" in the meeting. But htere are conditions that the manager cna place on allowing the emplyee to have an observer, so that really dones't bother me that much.

As I said, it's really up to the manager and company on what they want to do as a result of the meeting and how best to achieve it. If having an observer when balancing the positive and negative points will achieve the goals, then it may be do-able for them. It's a judgement call.

smarti

You bet they can have someone else in the room during evaluation. You did not say what the "past behavior" meant, however if the manager or person giving the evaluation has been questionable in the past, the employee may be very uncomfortable. Be careful of "harassment". If the employee finds the environment uncomfortable or hostile because of past behavior,it makes good sense to have someone else with them. Of course, I wouldn't babysit the employee either, use your good judgement, look out for both sides. There may be a lot of underlying factors we don't know about in this instance. Good luck.

Theresa Gegen TX

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-12-01 AT 05:10PM (CST)[/font][p]AS the first answer implied, there is a labor case (involving the application of the national labor relations act to non-union employers) that says that the employee has a right to have a co-employee present at an interview that may reasonably be expected to lead to discipline.

However, that case does not extend to the situation where the discipline is just going to be metted out (only to an interview situation). And it probably does not extend to just giving a performance review.

But, from the company's perspective, if the employee has complained about "questionable behavior" of this manager, having a witness there might be a good thing. The company can select the witness to be another manager or an HR person (again, the employee only gets the right to select a co-worker if it is an interview that might lead to discipline). The company's witness can take notes and can be used to refute any statements the employee might make if the employee alleges that the manager misbehaved.

Allowing the employee to bring a co-worker of their choice into a meeting (unless required by the labor case mentioned above) can result in any complaint the employee makes being deemed to be "concerted activity" (which is two or more employees acting together to complain about the workplace and is protected activity).
Good Luck!

WOCO Frank

I'd tell the employee you would be more than happy to sit in on the meeting. I would not ever suggest that the employee might exercise their rights under Weingarten. For that matter, I wouldn't even acknowledge that Weingarten exists, unless the employee brings it up.