Cathie's Corner Blog

(Published October 5, 2009)

There have been a lot of questions recently about personnel files and an employee's right to access them.  They've come from both sides of the desk; employers asking if they are required to provide access, and employees asking if they are guaranteed access.  I even had one employee asking if he could be granted access to a co-worker's file, which, of course, is a no-no.

The legal answer to whether an employer must provide employees access to their own personnel files is state specific.  Some states do not require it; other states do.  Of the states that do, some states require that the employee be given a copy; others only allow them to view the file.  Some states limit what documents can be seen or copied; other states do not.  Additionally, some states also give an employee the right to place a rebuttal in their file, if there is something in the file with which the employee disagrees.

Employees often have a mistaken idea of what kind of information is in their personnel files.  They have visions of documentation that they have never seen, which will somehow prove that they've been treated illegally.  I'm not quite sure what it is they specifically envision.  Correspondence from managers making damaging statements, maybe?  In many cases, employees ask to see their personnel file because they are convinced it is the key to making their case for illegal discrimination or what have you.

Let me say right now that if they are right, then you need to do two things yesterday: Review those personnel files yourself, and get your managers in for a to-the-point training class on employment laws and correct supervisory procedures.

But I'm going on the assumption that most of you treat your employees legally, and, therefore, there is no such "proof" in the files.

I have heard some employers in states where employees have no legal right to access their file take the stance that they would not voluntarily give employees access.  Although the employers have this right, in my opinion, they are being very shortsighted.  Blocking access is the very best way I can think of to ensure that the employee will continue to believe that they have been treated illegally and that the file will somehow "prove" it.  After all, they reason, if the employer didn't have something to hide in my file, why wouldn't they let me see it?

And why wouldn't you?  There shouldn't be any issues discussed in the personnel file that the employee is not aware of, be it as innocuous as a vacation request or as subjective as a performance review.  Whether they've seen the actual documentation or not before it goes into the file, they should at the very least be aware that it exists.  There are some things that are obvious, such as W-4s, benefits enrollment forms, and the aforementioned vacation requests.  I'm not saying you have to go out of your way to make them aware that this kind of documentation is in their files.  They know that without being told, or should.

But if you put any kind of disciplinary record, even if it's just a note about a verbal warning, into the file, the employee should know that it's there.  They should be aware of any kind of performance evaluation.  And if they want to see them, by all means allow it, whether the state requires it or not.  They should have seen most of the documents anyway; in fact, they should have been given the option of signing most of them.  What's the harm in letting them see the documents again?  None, in my opinion.  And what's more, it may do some good.  If they are given the opportunity to see that there's nothing in the file indicating illegal treatment, and that the employer has no secret documents hidden away, they're much less likely to take legal action, in my experience.

If we're open and honest with the employees, they're more likely to be open and honest with us!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.

(Published September 21, 2009)

I heard a line of dialogue on the television the other night that had me giggling.  A couple of co-workers were battling, and I do mean battling, over a procedural question.  One of them had the other by the shirt collar up against the wall, as she verbally assaulted him with all the reasons why the procedure needed to be changed.  Unseen by either of them, their boss came up behind them and said mildly, "Strictly speaking, throttling the staff is my job."

"I have got to turn that into a blog," I thought.

As companies go global, mergers and acquisitions are common, and smaller companies are gobbled up by larger ones; sometimes the lines in the chain of command get blurred.  Or, as employers are downsizing, senior members of a team are given the responsibility of overseeing a junior member, without being given actual supervisory responsibilities.  I've frequently had dotted-line reports, both with people reporting to me and people that I reported to.  My very first supervisory assignment, more than 20 years ago, covered three people; one reported directly to me and two were direct reports of someone at our regional office, but had a dotted-line report to me since I was on-site.

So, who gets to throttle the staff?

In a case like my television example, where a junior team member was being overseen by a senior one but with both members being supervised by the same person, any disciplinary action needs to be taken by the supervisor.  Under no circumstances should discipline be made on a lateral basis.  If there are problems, the senior member who is doing the overseeing should notify the supervisor, and then back off and let the supervisor do his or her job.

It's a little more complicated when there are "dueling supervisors."  You shouldn't be surprised if the supervisor tries to push the issue off on HR, or at least come to HR for guidance.  Asking for guidance is fine, but don't let your line managers push their responsibilities off on you.

It's my opinion that when there is an "official" supervisor and a dotted-line supervisor, the official supervisor should be the one who handles all disciplinary issues.  Just as with a senior team member checking up on a junior one, any issues should be reported to the managing supervisor so that he or she can take action.  Now, if the managing supervisor chooses to include the dotted-line or "unofficial" supervisor in the process, that's different.

If the employee in question has two direct supervisors, then I would say it depends on the offense.  If the offense is related to one specific supervisor, such as a performance issue with one supervisor's work, then that supervisor should be the one to address the question.  But if it's something that affects both supervisors, such as an excessive absence issue, then both supervisors should be involved.  I'm not saying that they should gang up on the employee, but the employee should be aware that the two supervisors present a united front.

Of course, it goes without saying that actually throttling the staff is a no-no!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.