Performance improvement templates toolkit

• A performance improvement process (PIP) should be initiated only after other methods of support and development have been tried and failed to improve the employee's performance.

• Goals should be specific, achievable, and measurable, and the process should be time-bound.

• Employers must ensure that the PIP is non-discriminatory and does not breach the Equality Act 2010. The process should be applied consistently and fairly across the organization.

• Employers should ensure that the employee is given appropriate support and resources to achieve the goals set out in the PIP. This may include training, coaching, mentoring, or other forms of support.

• Employers should ensure that the PIP is properly documented and that the employee has access to the documentation. The documentation should be clear and concise, and should outline the goals, objectives, and timeframes of the PIP.

• Employers should monitor the employee's progress regularly and provide constructive feedback. If the employee is not making progress, the employer may need to consider other options, such as redeployment or termination of employment.

Navigating Performance improvement processes correctly is crucial to help you avoid any problems (which can be costly in terms of time, money and reputation).

Recent UK case law has highlighted key aspects of good Performance improvement management. Knowing how courts have handled claims can help you assess whether your proposed actions are likely to be seen as reasonable.

Here are some notable rulings and their implications:

• Wileman v Minilec Engineering Ltd (2019)

  Facts: Mr. Wileman was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) after allegedly underperforming. He claimed the PIP was a pretext to manage him out due to his age.

  Outcome: The tribunal found in favour of Mr. Wileman, determining that the PIP was indeed used as a discriminatory tool rather than a genuine attempt to improve his performance.

  Key takeaway: HR professionals must ensure that PIPs are applied consistently and fairly, avoiding any discriminatory practices. Documentation and clear, objective criteria for performance issues are essential.

• Williams v Ministry of Defence (2021)

  Facts: Mr. Williams was placed on a PIP but claimed it was retaliatory after he raised concerns about workplace safety.

  Outcome: The tribunal ruled in favour of Mr. Williams, finding that the PIP was imposed in bad faith as retaliation for whistleblowing.

  Key takeaway: When implementing a PIP, employers must ensure it is not used as a retaliatory measure. Transparency and fair treatment are crucial to avoid legal repercussions.

Here are some complex but often common Performance improvement-related workplace scenarios that I have successfully helped to resolve, using the resources in this toolkit alongside some direct advice.

• Turning underperformance around with the right tools and advice

• Rebuilding morale after a missed promotion