Progressive Discipline or Fitness-for-Duty for a Senior Inspector
A senior building inspector with 11 years of service and no prior discipline has missed 14 inspections in 60 days, had two no-shows, and drawn one citizen complaint about demeanor. His supervisor smelled alcohol on his breath at 7:45 a.m. but did not order a test or document the observation at the time. The employee denies any problem. The collective bargaining agreement requires just cause for discipline and 24-hour notice before an investigatory interview, with union representation. The department has an EAP but no written fitness-for-duty policy. The supervisor wants immediate termination, arguing that missed inspections endanger the public. HR has asked the code official to decide the next step. The inspector currently conducts field inspections, including occupied rental units and a school addition.
1. What immediate response is appropriate, and should the department order a fitness-for-duty evaluation?
Read the worked answer
Treat this as a possible fitness-for-duty and performance issue, not an immediate termination. The supervisor has one observation of alcohol odor, no test, no written policy, and no prior discipline; termination now would likely fail just cause. Immediate steps: remove the inspector from safety-sensitive field duties pending review, with pay if the CBA or policy requires; document specific observations (date, time, behavior, statements) in objective terms; notify HR and the union; offer EAP; arrange a fitness-for-duty evaluation by a qualified provider under a written policy or, if none, through HR and legal. Do not diagnose or accuse. The evaluation should be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Keep the investigation separate from the evaluation. Reasoning: the employer has a duty to supervise and a duty not to discipline without evidence; a fitness-for-duty process protects the public and the employee. If the employee is fit, return to work with a performance improvement plan; if not, follow ADA and HR confidentiality rules.
2. Outline the disciplinary process using just cause and progressive discipline.
Read the worked answer
Just cause requires notice, a fair investigation, an opportunity to respond, and discipline proportionate to the offense and past practice. After the evaluation and investigation, hold an investigatory meeting with union representation; give the employee the specific allegations and evidence; allow a response. Consider progressive discipline: written reprimand for missed inspections and demeanor, then suspension, then termination only if repeated or if safety is compromised. Compare with how similar conduct has been treated. If substance use is substantiated, a last-chance agreement with treatment and return-to-work testing may be appropriate if consistent with policy and law. Document every step. Reasoning: an arbitrator or civil service board will ask whether the employer proved the conduct, followed the CBA, and considered mitigating factors such as 11 years of service and no prior discipline. Immediate termination looks arbitrary and exposes the department to reversal and back pay.
3. What supervisory and training changes should follow this case?
Read the worked answer
Set clear expectations for inspection scheduling, no-show notification, and customer conduct; require daily route closure in the permit system; review 10 inspections per inspector per month for quality and timeliness; use a 30-day coaching plan before formal discipline for performance. Train supervisors on reasonable suspicion, documentation, EAP referral, and CBA procedures. Create an early-warning dashboard for missed inspections, complaints, and overtime. Reasoning: the department had no documented expectations, so the inspector can claim the standard was unclear. Supervision must produce contemporaneous records, not a retroactive case file.