Monday, October 13, 2014

Non Punitive Reporting Policy

Non Punitive Reporting Policy

NOTE: This post is from one of our frequent contributors to this blog, "Birdseye59604.

The intent of a non-punitive reporting policy is to improve job-performance and organizational effectiveness. A non-punitive reporting policy is either established as a “feel good – do the right thing” policy, or as a regulatory requirement, or as a policy for operational effectiveness. A non-punitive reporting policy is an organizational statement, and commitment, that a person reporting does not have to fear repercussion, threats or punitive actions from management or from their peer group when reporting a hazard, incident or accident. 

If a policy is to be considered only when the lake floods the runway, then any action cannot proceed until the runway is flooded
A non-punitive policy could include a statement under what conditions punitive disciplinary actions would be considered. Some of these conditions could be illegal activity, negligence or willful misconduct. By introducing this statement, illegal activity becomes the line drawn for punitive-action and not as representation of job-performance evaluation. Options for an organization are then either to view an incident as an illegal activity and proceed accordingly, or as non-illegal without applying job-performance related actions. In this environment the safety culture could become that anything goes as long as it is not done with intent. 

When making the non-punitive policy an objective, the policy is a positive attraction to evaluate job performance. An objective example could be to have a policy for the internal reporting of hazards, incidents or accidents, and include conditions under which immunity from disciplinary action is granted. To reach this objective multiple goals are required, and these goals could be anything that would ensure the objective of a non-punitive job-performance environment. Goals are commitments given by both the organization and employees to strive for quality performance to reach these goals.  

Conditions under which immunity from disciplinary action is granted freedom from surprise. 

The significance difference between “conditions considered” or “immunity granted”, is that the application of “conditions considered” does not allow for job-performance adjustments unless it has reached the bar of what the conditions state, while the level of “immunity granted” is granted freedom from surprise and allows for job-performance adjustments at appropriate level and time. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Line-Item Audits

  Line-Item Audits By OffRoadPilots A irports and airlines are required to conduct a triennial audit of the entire quality assurance program...