Won't sign handbook

bgrimes · September 2002

Our CEO will not issue a bona fide handbook. We worked hard on one about a year ago, but in the end, he wouldn't issue it so none of the employees have written rules or procedures for ANYTHING. We have two EEOC claims against us right now. I wanted to start giving new hires a brief summary of our benefits, and explain our attendance expectations so I wrote up what I called an 'Employment Summary'. I showed it to the CEO to get his blessing. He decided we should add a little more. In the end it became a six page handout and included harassment, email, dress code, breaks, and personal phone calls. It also has an acknowledgment to sign and place in their file. It is the closest thing to a 'handbook' he will tolerate at this time. My question: If employees refuse to sign and return it, what can be done? I have several who won't sign. Advise.

hrqueen · September 2002

I would prepare a memo stating that employee "Jane Jones" was given a copy of the attached document (the handbook) on this date and she refused to sign the acknowledgement that she received it and understands it. You should then sign the memo and have a third party (the employee's supervisor or another manager) present when this takes place and have the third party sign and date the memo. Place it in the employee's personnel file. I do this when we discipline an employee and he/she refuses to sign the acknowledgement. Hope this helps.

Terry · September 2002

I use to roll these out in a group meeting where everyone signed an attendance sheet and used that as documentation that the information was received. It is then their responsibility to review the information.

moneyman · September 2002

I heard an innovative suggestion. At a seminar, they said to turn over the signature page and ask the employee to write that they refuse to sign the document on the back. Then, you have something that at least shows that your employee was aware of it. Amazingly enough, they say that it does work. People think that if they don't sign in the dotted line, that they haven't acknowledged anything and are happy to sign a refusal. Then, in the case you don't get anything, we just have HR document that it was distributed and the employee refused to sign.

Don D · September 2002

For new hires, if they won't sign it, they don't get hired, since it's part of the signup process that they did not complete. It's common for our (union) employees not to sign anything they're given. We don't sweat it. Their not signing carries absolutely no weight whatsoever during the course of their employment, in the carrying out of our policies or in any subsequent hearing during which they may assert "Hey, I didn't sign it." As previously stated, a supervisor should sign acknowledging the refuser's receipt of the document.

bgrimes · September 2002

Don's reply made me realize I hadn't mentioned that this is not a union environment. Also, I failed to mention that we ended up distributing the 'Employment Summary' to ALL company employees. It isn't the 'new hires' that are balking at signing it, it's the 'established' employees that have been here awhile.

Don D · September 2002

My reply remains the same even though you're not unionized. I only mentioned that because it is often 'union mentality' to balk at signing things. It seems to be more predominate where there's a union. But, the situation should be treated the same regardless. You'll never lose an unemployment hearing or any other hearing based on whether or not someone signed acknowledging receipt if you have supporting evidence that they did receive it.

vmiller MO · September 2002

Since MO is still an at-will state and since the courts still hold that handbooks are not contracts that limit an employer's ability to terminate the employment relationship, you are free to discipline employees and/or new hires for refusing to sign the acknowledgement or you can empower them to find work elsewhere.

Also note that EEOC has no power to tell you what policies your company should adopt or how to treat employees, except that you cannot unlawfully discriminate against them. One of the reasons for having policies is to ensure that the EEOC cannot find disparate treatment between or among protected groups. This is an evidentury reason and can save the company a lot of money if it avoids even one serious lawsuit. Perhaps your CEO will accept that reason even though he won't accept other reasons, i.e., morale, fair treat, team building, etc.

Terry · September 2002

Was there any statement from the CEO included with the Summary explaining why it was being distributed? I have always found that if it cannot be communicated in person, something explaining why these new "rules" are now being introduced goes a long way.

bgrimes · September 2002

>Was there any statement from the CEO included with the Summary
>explaining why it was being distributed? I have always found that if
>it cannot be communicated in person, something explaining why these
>new "rules" are now being introduced goes a long way.

Regarding the 'reason' for the Summary....the CEO told them that he has always run a "proceed on common sense" company. When the company was small, this worked fine. He then said "Now that there is over two hundred people, some of the 'common sense' is in writing". Not everyone uses the same 'common sense' (if any at all!). This is a manufacturing company, with quite diverse services and many departments. All these different areas of the company drift along using their own brand of common sense when they have problems because they don't really know what to do. There hasn't been many 'corporate' rules and procedures communicated to them. Even 'I' am at a disadvantage of what to tell them sometimes because 'I' don't always know what the CEO wants. What started all this about 'not signing' the summary is one certain young lady who is already violating the email statement in the summary. The IT guy is watching her email activity. It stated in the Summary that employees are not to use the email system for personal use. Her use is extreme. And on top of that, the emails indicate an illicit relationship (outside the company). We weren't comfortable confronting her with this until we have the signed acknowledgment, because prior to issuing the Summary, the employees hadn't been given 'email rules'. It also states in the email that we would be monitoring the email use.
I guess I get kinda 'paranoid' about things anymore. You have to take into consideration......I've been here 13 years....I started out as the receptionist, then accounting, and one day the CEO tells me I'm 'Human
Resources'. I've had no formal training. I am trying to educate myself by reading and the ever helpful feedback from all my forum buddies. You all know it's almost impossible to achieve this, but I'm trying. I've come along way, but sometimes I really suffer from feeling inept.

Gillian · September 2002

I don't have anything to add to the advice, but will respond to your feeling inept. I teach a lot (HR Certificate Programs) and it is amazing how many of the beginning HR students are in the same position that you are. One day a Secretary, Payroll Clerk, etc and the next day the new HR person. You are not alone!! You are ahead of the game by participating in this forum.

Don D · September 2002

You might want to talk to the UI folks to determine how your experience rating might be affected, if at all, if you decide to fire people for not signing acknowledging receipt. I will guarantee you that such terminees will draw unemployment insurance, if otherwise qualified. Sure, you can fire someone for that reason in an "at-will state", it just makes very little if any sense to do so. On the other hand, if signing a company document like a work order or process form required by a work rule or company procedure, a refusal to do so would not lead to receipt of UI if the ee were to be terminated, typically. x:-)

NaeNae55 · September 2002

I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere (probably on this forum) a suggestion for when employees refuse to sign an acknowledgement. The person who made the suggestion said to simply turn the acknowledgement over and write on it "I refuse to sign this acknowledgement." and hand it to the person to sign. You pretty much accomplish what you need, and the employee feels they have successfully bucked the system.

Terry · September 2002

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-12-02 AT 07:33PM (CST)[/font][p]I would just confront her head on and have a meeting with a copy of the total summary and the email policy highlighted with another manager in the room. I would then tell her it is her responsibility to read and understand this and if she has any questions it is her responsiblity to ask them, that she is being given a head's up on her email usage and, should she continue being in non-compliance (I love this word as opposed to violate), it will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Have this completely documented and ready to have her sign the meeting notes. If she refuses to sign the notes, either turn the paper over and, as mentioned above, have her sign the back that she refused or have the other manager sign as a witness. One company I worked for had a statement at the end of their disciplinary forms that said something like "your signature does not indicate your agreement or disagreement with the above information, it does indicate that the meeting (or whatever) took place and the information was conveyed. Should you refuse to sign, and witness may sign for you." If you want these policies to be taken seriously then employees need to know the consequences. Unfortunately the only way to do this is with a real life example.

Also, there are HR classes almost everywhere, local college business schools, etc. You may want to look into SHRM or other HR organizations and see if they have a local chapter or even state conferences. I also know that my DOL office has an employer services unit and they have educational meetings for a very low cost. Lastly, my state has an employers association that helps with many aspects of HR.

bgrimes · September 2002

As always....thank you all for your help and replys.

Nat · September 2002

Employees need to be aware that not signing the document(s) does not releive them from being held responsible for them. They will still be held to the standards as written in the policy or handouts. Definitely get a second person to sign stating that the employee refused to sign.

Nat

Ruskanen · September 2002

You could type up a statement above the signature that says something about, "I sign to confirm that I have been informed of the change in policy." And, maybe explain to them that not signing does not make them exempt from following the policy.

When I give new hire orientation and I ask them to sign the acknowledgement of the policy handbook, I phrase it this way. "I want to make sure I'm doing my job and doing it well. My job is to make sure that you are well informed. I don't want anyone to ever say, "I didn't know that!" Please review what we went over. If you have questions on something, let me know. If not, mark that we went over it and sign at the bottom." You can also quiz them on basic information...dress code, start and stop times, attendance policy. I try to convey that I want them to critique my work, and not that I'm trying to get them to sign their lives away.

Won't sign handbook

Comments