Last month I wrote about the importance of determining why a member has failed to meet expectations. Firefighters are generally motivated to do the right thing; a failure to perform is generally the result of an omission rather than a commission.
In those relatively rare instances, however, where a member intentionally does harm, avoids doing their job, or does something that they know to be wrong, progressive discipline exists. The primary goal is to change behavior and, at the same time, protect the organization. Now comes the next part of the discussion: equity.
Consistency in Application
Equity in discipline refers to applying a similar level of discipline to all personnel under the same or similar circumstances. Importantly, this principle does not mean that identical offenses committed by two different individuals must automatically result in identical sanctions. Discipline must take into account pertinent circumstances, including each individual’s length of service, previous infractions and documented disciplinary actions. In addition, the seriousness of the current issue must also be taken into account. A few examples illuminate the concept.
Scenario #1: You’re a company officer and two of your members are late for work. The first is a 12-year veteran who has never been late (to your knowledge) and in his explanation, reports that he experienced a flat tire on the way to work and failed to call because he left his cell phone at home. The second member is a five-year veteran who has been late for work once in each of the past five years. Because the instances appear to have fallen sufficiently far apart, he has not been disciplined formally in the past.
Are these situations identical? Should the members receive the exact same discipline for the exact same offense? What would you do?
Scenario #2: You’re a captain in a volunteer station. You walk into the bunkroom and find several members (some over 18, some under 18) and a lieutenant on the station computer watching pornographic material. Your company has a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate material in the station. An internal investigation is undertaken and a decision is made to discipline the personnel involved.
Do you fire everyone? Does the lieutenant get demoted but allowed to remain a member of the company? What are the issues associated with minors in the fire station being involved in such activities–and what happens when the story breaks in the local newspaper?
Scenario #3: A veteran firefighter in your company develops performance issues and receives a series of unsatisfactory performance appraisals. Successive opportunities for improvement are offered without success, and the progressive discipline policy calls for the member to be separated from the company. You’re his supervisor and have been intimately involved in the case. At the 11th hour, the member asserts a claim of discrimination against you based on a protected class status. Do you abandon the disciplinary process?
No Easy Answers
The scenarios presented are, by design, not easily solved. They do, however, offer an opportunity to consider such cases before you might actually have to confront them. In each case, it’s essential to conduct a thorough investigation, taking into account each member’s rights as they pertain to confidentiality and, in the case of collective bargaining agreements, the right to be represented during any interview or disciplinary proceeding.
Equally important is to review previous cases with similar circumstances, and carefully consider the level of discipline handed out. This may require access to personnel files that could involve your human resource manager, the Office of Law, the fire chief and others, depending on the severity of the situation.
Critically important is to ensure that you’re not making a decision in a vacuum, without the benefit of counsel from those who may possess a more global understanding of the organization and its history. You might make the mistake of issuing a written reprimand to an employee for an action that another employee was recently suspended for under similar circumstances. Such a decision will be even more difficult to defend if the member receiving the lesser discipline is not in a protected class and the member receiving the more severe discipline is.
By itself, the threat of a claim of discrimination should never dissuade an officer from fulfilling their responsibility. The key question to be asked: How have I/we treated similarly situated individuals? Then, act in a similar fashion. There is a tremendous difference between an assertion of discrimination and the upholding of such an assertion. Be careful: In the scenario described above, such an assertion would likely be upheld by an independent entity, even if the discrimination was not intentional.
Full Circle
Individuals subject to disciplinary action do not automatically need to be treated identically. A careful review of the circumstances of each case, coupled with an understanding of previously decided cases–including a comparison of circumstances–will generally lead you to making a decision that is both defendable and appropriate.
Remember: The goal of disciplinary action is to change behavior. When you focus on the facts and issues at hand, you are better positioned to have your decision upheld during an appeals process or external review. Justice should always be blind–but not to the facts.
