Ever wanted to fire someone for safety violations? You aren’t alone
A majority of employers have either fired an employee for safety violations or wanted to fire someone but could not do so for some reason. Only about a third of employers never fired anyone for safety violations.
Between two webinars delivered in March 2024, more than 200 safety professionals answered the question, “Have you ever fired an employee for excessive safety violations?” The poll offered four possible answers:
- Yes
- No
- Wanted to but couldn’t do it
- Two or more of the above
We added those who selected “two or more” in the total for “wanted to but couldn’t” since the “two or more” category should obviously include that option.
The results showed that 46 percent of respondents had fired someone for safety violations. Another 8 percent responded that they wanted to fire someone but could not, and about 10 percent selected the “two or more” option. Combining the last two categories shows that 18 percent, or nearly one in five employers, wanted to terminate an employee for safety violations but were unable to do so.
Just over a third, or 36 percent of respondents, indicated that they’ve never fired anyone for safety violations. Of course, those answers might change as their safety careers continue.
Termination failures
The poll did not ask why the terminations could not proceed, but the reasons likely include a supervisor failing to document the violations, and concerns over retaliation or discrimination lawsuits.
For example, employers often adopt progressive disciplinary policies for addressing repeated safety violations such as verbal warning, written warning, second written warning, suspension, then termination. All too often, a supervisor gets “fed up” with an employee’s unsafe behavior and wants to terminate, but never documented the progressive warnings.
Similarly, unsafe conduct often (but not always) causes injuries. Firing a worker who got injured (especially without documentation of prior warnings) might raise questions of whether the injury itself was a motivating factor. In particular, a whistleblower investigator might ask the employer if it ever fired someone for safety violations even if the employee was not injured. Firing only workers who got injured can create the impression that the employer does not consistently enforce the safety rules, since not every repeat safety offender gets injured.
For related information, see our article Addressing a repeat safety offender.
What went wrong?
If an employer must fire an employee, something went wrong. Employers adopt progressive disciplinary policies not just to create documentation for terminations, but to provide multiple opportunities for the employee to correct the undesirable behavior. Under those policies, termination should occur only after the employee received support, encouragement, and opportunities to change.
Managers and supervisors should understand that enforcing rules and documenting violations are necessary to support a termination, but enforcing rules is very different from encouraging compliance.
To illustrate, if an employee tells an off-color joke, a supervisor might schedule a private meeting, explain why the conduct was wrong, describe the company’s expectations, outline the consequences for future infractions, and extract a promise from the employee to change the behavior.
Safety violations could be addressed similarly. After all, the purpose is to outline the company’s expectations. The consequences of future safety violations would include the employee getting injured, perhaps seriously. Explain that safety rules protect the employee from injury and point out that the employee should be more concerned about getting injured than about getting fired. This may help the employee recognize the need to change, allowing the employee to stay employed and stay safe.
For related information, see our article Poor attitude is a symptom, not a cause of non-compliance.
Key to remember: A termination for safety violations should occur only with appropriate documentation showing that the employee was given opportunities to correct the unsafe behavior.
