Anonymous wrote:+1 to the above. As long as the PIP stands and the employee is eventually removed, all is good. Can you update, OP?

Employee 1 screwed up while on PIP and was still not fired. As I mentioned, the company doesn't seem to want to fire Employee 1. They are likely looking for any way that would calm things down without escalating. They thought Employee 2 would simply accept a warning letter and move on.

Anonymous wrote:HR is there to cover the company's butt, and that's what they are doing with the warning.

It's nothing. It shows they took employee 1 seriously, even if they don't give a damn. It's setting them up to fire for cause, if needed. Let it go and do your job.

I am not buying this. Employee 1 should have been fired already based on performance. It doesn't look like HR wants to do the right thing for reasons other than performance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in HR and this is really weird and dumb of Hr as they are handing Ee 1 a way to challenge their termination.

I’m assuming there is no union here?

I think the best Ee 2 can do is request to put a written response on their personnel file which should be as succinct as possible and just set out the facts. Ideally. Ee 2 could also try their managers to write a letter for the file that says it was very helpful for ee 2 to point out these deficiencies, and that he/she does not see any basis for concluding that reporting the deficiencies in any way violated company policy.

This is good to hear from and HR person and lines up with our thinking. That's likely exactly what Employee 1 is looking for because the writing was on the wall once they were placed on PIP. You are correct - there is no union.

The problem is that HR refuses to meet or engage in any way. I believe HR is legally required to provide employees guidance on HR issues, including how they can challenge HR decisions. Looking for advice on this forum is the last resort to find solutions that don't cost an arm and a leg. An employment attorney will come next if we cannot avoid going that route.

Is this a private company? What makes you think they are legally required to do this?

Barring federal employment, local government (city, school board, etc), or union, that's not what HR is for. I don't know what you would contact an employment attorney for at this point.

It is a private company. As the wording I used suggests "I believe" that they have to provide HR-related information to employees. They should not be able to take adverse action against an employee without telling that employee how they can challenge that action. I simply assume that legislation might even force them to disclose their policies and how the adverse action can be challenged internally and externally. The company HR ghosted Employee 2 for more than a month after they issued the warning letter. Now they are returning to the table, but it is not clear yet how things will go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m assuming employee 2 is the boss. If written warning was ‘behave better’ it’s NBD.

You’re potentially mishandling the whole thing and between the two of you, you’re getting on HR’s last nerve. Eat the warning. Focus on getting Employee 1 either in line with no errors and performing or moving him/her out the door.

This idea that someone is getting on HR's last nerve is stupid. Part of HR role is to solve conflict between employees. If they cannot solve these conflicts professionally, they should look for a different job.

HRs job is to protect the organization - if that means mediation between two people then that is what they will do. But HR does not exist merely to referee your conflicts like a parent. I don’t understand how you’d get an employment attorney involved if you are employee 2??? For what cause wrongdoing or harm to you?? It sounds like you had it out for your peer, employee 1, whether the errors are true or not and this has now become a battle between the two of you. She made a claim against you and you’re proclaiming ‘not fair!’. That’s not how HR works, kid. We now know you’re not the manager - all I can say is grow up OP.

OP here with a new series of answers / clarifications. Employee 2 does not post on this forum, but employee 2 is part of my family. I will leave it as vague as possible and I hope this answers another question asked on this thread. You don't know enough about the case to suggest that Employee 2 had it out for Employee 1, this is just a dumb assumption. Making sure that the work is done properly has nothing to do with "having it out for a peer."

If HR's job is to protect the organization, they should thread water very carefully when they issue warning letters with allegations that they cannot substantiate. This sounds to me like they want to appease a low performing employee who is clearly abusing the HR process.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, you need to just let it go. In corporate America, a “written warning” pretty much is meaningless. It would be a huge waste of money to hire a lawyer over this.

Except when funding dips and they have to figure out who gets the boot.

Honestly, you need to just let it go. In corporate America, a “written warning” pretty much is meaningless. It would be a huge waste of money to hire a lawyer over this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in HR and this is really weird and dumb of Hr as they are handing Ee 1 a way to challenge their termination.

I’m assuming there is no union here?

I think the best Ee 2 can do is request to put a written response on their personnel file which should be as succinct as possible and just set out the facts. Ideally. Ee 2 could also try their managers to write a letter for the file that says it was very helpful for ee 2 to point out these deficiencies, and that he/she does not see any basis for concluding that reporting the deficiencies in any way violated company policy.

This is good to hear from and HR person and lines up with our thinking. That's likely exactly what Employee 1 is looking for because the writing was on the wall once they were placed on PIP. You are correct - there is no union.

The problem is that HR refuses to meet or engage in any way. I believe HR is legally required to provide employees guidance on HR issues, including how they can challenge HR decisions. Looking for advice on this forum is the last resort to find solutions that don't cost an arm and a leg. An employment attorney will come next if we cannot avoid going that route.

Who is “our” and “we”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in HR and this is really weird and dumb of Hr as they are handing Ee 1 a way to challenge their termination.

I’m assuming there is no union here?

I think the best Ee 2 can do is request to put a written response on their personnel file which should be as succinct as possible and just set out the facts. Ideally. Ee 2 could also try their managers to write a letter for the file that says it was very helpful for ee 2 to point out these deficiencies, and that he/she does not see any basis for concluding that reporting the deficiencies in any way violated company policy.

+1. I'm not in HR, but as a manager that's dealt with a good number of issues and also with HR, I agree with this.

The HR reaction is very strange, and seems to give EE2 a case for retaliation - EE2 reports deficiencies leading to EE1's PIP. Then EE1 abuses the HR process to have a letter of warning placed in EE2s personnel file. Management really should be going to bat here.

If EE2 can't get the rebuttal in their file I do think an employment lawyer is the next step. There's not really a lawsuit here at this point, but the threat of legal action might get the company to do something about HR.

Career limiting move. Dumb dumb dumb .

Anonymous wrote:I work in HR and this is really weird and dumb of Hr as they are handing Ee 1 a way to challenge their termination.

I’m assuming there is no union here?

I think the best Ee 2 can do is request to put a written response on their personnel file which should be as succinct as possible and just set out the facts. Ideally. Ee 2 could also try their managers to write a letter for the file that says it was very helpful for ee 2 to point out these deficiencies, and that he/she does not see any basis for concluding that reporting the deficiencies in any way violated company policy.

+1. I'm not in HR, but as a manager that's dealt with a good number of issues and also with HR, I agree with this.

The HR reaction is very strange, and seems to give EE2 a case for retaliation - EE2 reports deficiencies leading to EE1's PIP. Then EE1 abuses the HR process to have a letter of warning placed in EE2s personnel file. Management really should be going to bat here.

If EE2 can't get the rebuttal in their file I do think an employment lawyer is the next step. There's not really a lawsuit here at this point, but the threat of legal action might get the company to do something about HR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m assuming employee 2 is the boss. If written warning was ‘behave better’ it’s NBD.

You’re potentially mishandling the whole thing and between the two of you, you’re getting on HR’s last nerve. Eat the warning. Focus on getting Employee 1 either in line with no errors and performing or moving him/her out the door.

This idea that someone is getting on HR's last nerve is stupid. Part of HR role is to solve conflict between employees. If they cannot solve these conflicts professionally, they should look for a different job.

HRs job is to protect the organization - if that means mediation between two people then that is what they will do. But HR does not exist merely to referee your conflicts like a parent. I don’t understand how you’d get an employment attorney involved if you are employee 2??? For what cause wrongdoing or harm to you?? It sounds like you had it out for your peer, employee 1, whether the errors are true or not and this has now become a battle between the two of you. She made a claim against you and you’re proclaiming ‘not fair!’. That’s not how HR works, kid. We now know you’re not the manager - all I can say is grow up OP.

This is not patronizing in any way.

You don’t know that the person will be removed.

+1 to the above. As long as the PIP stands and the employee is eventually removed, all is good. Can you update, OP?

Anonymous wrote:HR is there to cover the company's butt, and that's what they are doing with the warning.

It's nothing. It shows they took employee 1 seriously, even if they don't give a damn. It's setting them up to fire for cause, if needed. Let it go and do your job.

Yup. This. It actually supports the termination down the road - “employee1’s concerns about work environment were addressed promptly” - the other HR person is reading the situation incorrectly. If employee1 filed a complaint it had to be looked into. The problem is employee2 cannot see the forest for the trees here and she taking it as a personal affront. She doesn’t know. Leave it alone and Go back to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in HR and this is really weird and dumb of Hr as they are handing Ee 1 a way to challenge their termination.

I’m assuming there is no union here?

I think the best Ee 2 can do is request to put a written response on their personnel file which should be as succinct as possible and just set out the facts. Ideally. Ee 2 could also try their managers to write a letter for the file that says it was very helpful for ee 2 to point out these deficiencies, and that he/she does not see any basis for concluding that reporting the deficiencies in any way violated company policy.

This is good to hear from and HR person and lines up with our thinking. That's likely exactly what Employee 1 is looking for because the writing was on the wall once they were placed on PIP. You are correct - there is no union.

The problem is that HR refuses to meet or engage in any way. I believe HR is legally required to provide employees guidance on HR issues, including how they can challenge HR decisions. Looking for advice on this forum is the last resort to find solutions that don't cost an arm and a leg. An employment attorney will come next if we cannot avoid going that route.

Is this a private company? What makes you think they are legally required to do this?

Barring federal employment, local government (city, school board, etc), or union, that's not what HR is for. I don't know what you would contact an employment attorney for at this point.

HR is there to cover the company's butt, and that's what they are doing with the warning.

It's nothing. It shows they took employee 1 seriously, even if they don't give a damn. It's setting them up to fire for cause, if needed. Let it go and do your job.