If under-performance is not dealt with in a timely, reasonable and lawful manner, the impact on your business results and team culture can be unnecessarily costly.

The performance management process can vary depending on the policies and guidelines at your workplace. A general formula will include setting clear expectations, providing reasonable timeframes and support for improvement, and clearly stating any consequences (warnings, dismissal etc) along the way, if the employee does not meet the necessary performance expectations.

Over the next few weeks, The Victorian Chamber’s Workplace Relations experts will share their tips for navigating this tricky area of people management, starting with addressing a few of the myths we frequently hear about warnings.

So, what are the main myths about warnings?

Myth #1: Three warnings are required

This is not baseball. We don’t necessarily get three strikes. Unless your policy says otherwise, you do not have to issue a minimum of three warnings.

While multiple warnings do help demonstrate that the business has followed a fair process and provided a reasonable opportunity to improve, there is no magic number of warnings required. No two performance improvement processes are identical, and there may be many variables that influence the number of warnings, or other disciplinary approaches, which may be appropriate to your situation.

Myth #2: Warnings have an expiry date

Unless your policy or process states that a warning will expire after a certain deadline (often assumed to be 12 months), this is not a requirement.

Of course, you can’t necessarily rely heavily on a previous warning that was given to an employee more than 12 months ago, especially if you are proposing to terminate employment. A more recent warning will carry more weight, but don’t ignore previous performance concerns just because they’re a bit further in the past. They may still provide important context if there is a repeated drop in performance.

Myth #3: The warning is not valid if the employee hasn’t signed it

If you are issuing a formal warning to an employee, we strongly recommend putting it in writing. If the employee signs the written warning, that also helps confirm they have received the warning and helps show they understand what the warning means.

However, if the employee refuses to sign, it doesn’t mean the warning is invalid. In that scenario, keep the documentation on file and evidence you have provided it to the employee. We also suggest keeping a record if the employee specifically refuses to acknowledge the warning, or if the employee states any disagreement with your assessment of their performance.

Myth #4: Verbal warnings are insufficient

As above, written records are always better than the alternative. To avoid misunderstanding or confusion about directions or warnings you have provided to employees, it is important to provide any warning in writing. Failure to do so may cause problems later down the track and result in your process being deemed harsh or unfair.

If you provide some informal feedback, reset clear performance expectations and state consequences if performance does not improve, this is often referred to as a ‘verbal warning’.

Even if you don’t issue a written warning at this stage, it’s still a good idea to let the employee know you will keep a record for future reference, and to avoid any ambiguity or debate if the issue comes up again.

Read Part Two: Ensuring employees meet performance expectations

How the Victorian Chamber can help

For assistance on any aspect of your employment obligations, please call the Victorian Chamber Workplace Relations Advice Line on 8662 5222. Our experienced team are here to give you over-the-phone advice about human resources or workplace relations issues.

We also have a team of experts who can help your business navigate these complexities. We can assist your business by providing HR strategic advice to assist in minimising the risk of an unfair dismissal claim, or other claims, to the Fair Work Commission.