Should discipline be different?

sharonm

I am conducting an EEO investigation and part of this investigation involves two employees. These two employees (#1 & #2) were "partners in crime" in correcting an error that a 3rd employee made in the lab (they're technicians). The three techs kept this a secret from management until a month later when it was discovered that the labels had been switched to correct an error. The incident was discussed in a critique. When tech #1 discovered that management had found their "cover-up" she immediately confessed what she and tech #2 had done. Tech #1 told tech #2 that she had gone to management and confessed. Tech #2 went to management and confessed the next day. Discipline for #1 was Informative (not discipline) because she was "forthright in confessing". Management gave tech #2 a Corrective (one step more than informative) because they believe that she wouldn't have come forth at all if she had not found out that tech #1 confessed.

My thought is that they should have been disciplined the same for doing the same wrong (covering up someone's mistake). So what if tech #2 waited until the next day and after learning that tech #1 confessed. Neither one would have confessed if they had not been caught by management. Just because tech #2 went after learning tech #1 went forward, should tech #2 get more discipline????? I hope you can follow this! Comments please!

CuriousG

Your reasoning is essentially correct. What is most important is that neither employee showed any sign or confessing until management discovered their cover-up. Employee #1 confessed as soon as she became aware of management's knowledge. Your posting does not state this, but I assume that employee #2 learned of management's knowledge of the cover up from employee #1-so #2 confessed as soon as he/she became aware of management's knowledge, also.

The wrong probably is not that one waited a day longer to confess. The real wrong is that neither one of them admitted to the cover-up until they were already caught. Give them both the Corrective discipline.

As a follow up to this investigation, your organization should also ask itsefl "What is there about our culture that made these employees feel the need to hide the mistake in the first place?"

If it was it fear of retribution by management that is a serious commentary on the orgzniation? Hidden mistakes can be dangerous in almost any situation, but especially in a lab or medical setting. Since this is an EEO complaint investigation there is obviously some distrust or even fear of management and its use or abuse of power.

If your management team has a history of "stoning the messenger" there is no telling what other land mines are out there waiting to be discovered. In a climate of fear and suspicision of management, some of those will only be discovered the hard way - by blowing up in someone's face. Your managers need to step back and reassess before they take disciplinary action to be sure that they are not winning the battle, but losing the war.

sharonm

You are right on the money! There are serious trust issues and management intimidation going on in this organization. You are good at what you do! Thanks for your help.

WT

I believe there is a missing piece to this puzzle. Management discovered that somebody had made an error because a label was switched but they did not know the guilty party. Ask yourself this, if all parties lied and denied knowledge of the problem, did you have sufficient information to prove who did it. It is not enough to know somebody did it. If evidence was not sufficient, then the confession had value. If so, a lighter discipline may well be justified. The message here is that honesty will get you something of value even if a little late in the game. You do not want to send the message that all parties would have been better off to lie.

If you had enough evidence to prove who did the deed, then discipline should be equal. However, if you already had the evidence, why wait for the confession to administer discipline?

Don D

Look W.T.! Nobody should have this much reasoning ability left by Friday afternoon. I generally run out about mid Thursday.

Rockie

You are correct! Both should have been disciplined equally as it it obvious that neither one would have come forward unless they had been found out. Both were culpable in the coverup.

Carol CA

I agree with the others that these two should be disciplined equally - but what about employee #3 who made the error? What happened to him? Surely he knew he made an error and the other two covered it up for him? He should have come forward and admitted his error in the first place, and none of this would have happened.