CMI (Other exams): Absence, conflict and agency cover on a picking line

The first action is to stabilise the work rather than start with a team meeting. I would reallocate the two agency workers to a paired-picking arrangement with a experienced picker for the next two shifts and give them a 30-minute scanner induction before the shift starts. This addresses the most visible productivity gap immediately: agency workers at 55 lines per hour are unlikely to reach 78 without task-specific training, and pair-picking gives real-time correction without removing a permanent picker from the line for a whole shift. I would record the induction so it is repeatable.

The second action is a 15-minute private conversation with Aisha and Tom, separately. I would not attempt mediation in the first 48 hours; the aim is to establish facts and immediate workable boundaries. I would ask each what they need to do their job, state that I will not move either person as a first response because that rewards the dispute, and agree temporary aisle allocations that keep them apart without implying blame. I would set a review in five days.

The third action is to analyse the absence pattern before Friday. Three one-day absences and one stress leave may be unrelated, but the timing matters. I would check shift patterns, whether the absences cluster around the new scanner rollout, and whether the stress leave is linked to workload or the conflict. I would then decide whether a return-to-work conversation or an occupational health referral is needed. I would not promise overtime as a fix because the cap of 6 hours per person limits it and it does not solve the root cause. I would send my manager a short interim note by Thursday with these actions and the data I still need.

I would use a structured, low-formality approach because I am the team leader and have direct authority, but I should not act as judge. First, I would separate the relationship problem from the work problem. The work problem is that two experienced pickers are disrupting breaks and aisle coverage. The relationship problem is a shift-swap dispute that has become personal. I would hold a joint 20-minute conversation with clear ground rules: each person describes what happened without interruption, then each states what they need for the next two weeks. I would not ask them to apologise or agree on the past. Instead I would agree a temporary working protocol: fixed aisle allocations, break times staggered by 10 minutes, and no direct shift swaps without my approval for the next month.

If the joint conversation escalates, I would stop it and revert to separate agreements. I would document the agreed protocol and give both a copy. I would also make clear that refusing to speak to a colleague is acceptable only if it does not affect handovers; handover must be written or via me.

Success after two weeks would be measured behaviourally, not by whether they like each other. Indicators would be: no further requests to move the other person; handovers completed; first-hour pick rate recovering to at least 85 lines per hour; and no further absence from either person. I would also check whether other team members are being drawn into taking sides. If the protocol holds, I would review after four weeks and consider removing the fixed allocations. If it does not, I would escalate to my manager or HR for a formal route, because repeated informal attempts can make the situation worse.

I would treat the agency workers as a short-term capability problem, not a motivation problem. At 55 lines per hour against a team average of 78, the gap is too large to attribute to attitude after one week. The immediate cause is likely task knowledge: they have not been inducted on the new scanner and may not know the pick-face layout, the labelling rules, or the error-escalation route. I would therefore define a three-shift induction: shift one, scanner basics and shadowing; shift two, paired picking with feedback every 30 minutes; shift three, independent picking with a 10% sample check. I would give them a one-page visual guide and name one permanent picker as a buddy.

I would also check whether the agency brief was accurate. If the agency was told the role was general warehouse work rather than scanner-based picking, that is a contract issue to raise with the agency account manager. I would not use overtime to cover their gap until the induction has been tried, because the overtime cap is tight and it would hide the training problem.

Measurement should be specific and time-bound. I would track lines per hour per agency worker at the end of each shift, error rate from sample checks, and the number of times they need help. I would compare them with the team median, not the top performer. A realistic target is 70 lines per hour by the end of week two and 78 by week four. I would also track the permanent team's pick rate to check that pair-picking is not reducing overall output. If there is no improvement after three shifts of structured induction, I would involve the agency and consider ending the placement rather than letting a long-term gap become normal.