It doesn't matter how many eyewitnesses saw the disgruntled individual receive your verbal warnings, you'll lose without documentation. I know this may go against your principles, but it's a reasonable firm decision when the troublemaker is costing the business lost time, lower esprit de corps, lost productivity, regulatory fines and legal hassles. However, if you believe the worker's productivity can be altered, counseling employees is an intermediate step before dismissing. For example, when you have thoroughly detailed the jobholder's theft of business property, you won't have to pay much over your first offer. Your notification should detail exactly what happened and why this was against the rules, and it should set up a time for the employee to meet with you. A jobholder-employer stalemate of this kind can only make it worse and the supervisor must address this right away. As an example, your risk of sacking is much less when the employee has punched his supervisor in the face - than when you sack a high-performing 60-year-old employee to give your daughter-in-law his job. A less severe form is a "layoff", which means the dismissal is owing to corporate restructuring or external firm forces. ANSWER TO PART B: "Yes." You have adequate evidence with your written warnings about her productivity problems, and you have given her 4 chances to increase including training. By keeping a letter or template, you can efficiently lay off the employee who does not show for another shift. *If you have decided to layoff the employee committing theft, have the termination papers drawn up and cut a check for their remaining pay.

because it's the only published source that clearly gives you proper procedures for sacking problem employees and laying off during a downsizing. Employers who must fire a worker who falls under protective laws may feel like they are in a tough spot. If your risk level is too high, you must compile enough evidence before separating. Finally, this warning should obviously spell out what will happen if the employee chooses to break the rule again. In such a circumstance how do you make sure that your termination notification is worker foolproof?