Falsifying documentation

angelwings

Recently my boss suspended an employee and they refused to sign the suspension notice. Our handbook states that if an employee refuses to sign, a supervisor or another manager will be called in to witness their refusal. There were no witnesses and nobody was called in to witness. However, when this employee requested a copy of this form (employee has left our company), there was a second signature of another manager dated the day after the suspension took place. How can my boss do this legally when the person who signed as a witness not only was NOT there, but signed and dated it a day later? Isn't this falsifying a document that is going into this person's file? Can't this get us into some trouble legally?

Meg

I agree with you that if the documents were not signed in the presence of the employee, then the document should not have been signed at all. At my company, if an employee refuses to sign an action plan, or warning, then we simply document "employee refused to sign." We also allow the employee to include their comments regarding the write up. Usually, the employee does sign and does not write in any comments. However, if they refuse to sign and do not include any comments, I usually feel they recognize what they have done or are embarrassed and don't want to pursue the matter further.

sonny

At least it was not back dated. .that really burns me!

awilliams

I doubt that it would be considered falsifying a document, since the signor clearly indicated the date that he or she signed it. It could be interpreted that he was signing to indicate that there was no signature there. In the future, I agree that you should train your supervisors on your company's procedure. However, no harm was done here.

Anne Williams

Theresa Gegen TX

I wouldn't call it a falsified document. The document was true. The signature reflected that it was signed the next day. Maybe the manager should be told that the purpose of the signature is to have a witness to the discipline (that the discipline was actually given). So having someone sign it later, really serves no purpose (that person can't say whether the disciplinary notice was given, since they were not present).

However, I would not accuse the manager of falifying anything! That would be an explosive thing to say and really would serve no purpose.

Good Luck!

Don D

It's really cumbersome and invasive to have another party witness the discipline just in case he/she might need to sign acknowledging its occurence. In our case, the signature is only acknowledging the fact that the ee refused to sign, not that the discipline occurred or didn't. It's none of 'his' business whether or not discipline occurred unless the additional signer is in the ee's chain of command. With HR in the room and the ee and his supervisor, there should be ample signatories in the event of refusal. I think its a breach of confidence and bad judgement to go down the hall to get somebody unrelated to the matter to sign, therefore announcing something that should be confidential.

Theresa Gegen TX

Its true Don, that the person doesn't need to know the details of the discipline. But if they aren't there when the employee refuses to sign the document, then they can't attest to the fact that the document was ever presented to the employee. The employee could claim later that he or she has never seen the discipline (Yes this has actually happened). Also, it should be a another supervisor or HR person, not a co-worker, who is the witness.