Get This Wrong and It’ll Cost You

The word "disciplinary" sounds harsh, and most owners treat it that way. They put it off, drop hints across three months of half-conversations, and then one day reach the end of their patience and let someone go. That's not fair to anyone, least of all the person who never had a clear moment to put things right.

Here's the reframe that often changes everything: the whole purpose of a disciplinary process is to keep someone in their job. To support and boost them. Not to push them out.

Before we go any further, a quick note. This is about the principles and mindset behind running the process well, not a legal instruction manual. The specific mechanics (notice periods, the right to be accompanied, appeal rights, statutory minimums) sit at https://www.gov.uk/disciplinary-procedures-and-action-at-work, which links to the ACAS Code of Practice that employment tribunals will expect you to have followed.

Consider this before you do anything else

Even with the right people and proper training, things will go wrong. The question is which kind of thing.

A knowledge problem means the person didn't do the right thing because they didn't know what the right thing was. That's your responsibility. The fix is more training and documentation, not discipline.

A behaviour problem means they knew exactly what was expected and chose not to do it. That's their decision. That's where the formal disciplinary process belongs.

The distinction matters for more than fairness. It matters legally. A tribunal will expect you to have trained them competently before you warned them. The trap most operators fall into is treating every problem as a behaviour problem and reaching for discipline when the real failure was the absence of clear training in the first place.

Look in the mirror first

A fair process starts with the owner checking themselves, not the employee. Think about these four questions before you sit anyone down:

1. Was training provided? Have you actually trained this person on this specific behaviour or task, not just generally?

2. Can you evidence it? Is there a written record: a signature, a date, a documented acknowledgement?

3. Do they understand it? Does the employee acknowledge they fully understand the standard, not just that they sat through a session?

4. Is it written down? Is the standard you expect documented and easy for them to refer to without having to ask someone?

If any answer is no, fix that first. Train them, document it, get acknowledgement, and only then return to the conversation about behaviour. If all four are yes, you're ready to have a fair, professional, supportive conversation.

The ladder

Once you've cleared the mirror check, the process itself runs in stages: an informal chat off the floor, a verbal warning with advance notice, a first written warning, a final written warning, and only then dismissal, each step confirmed in writing with a defined review period. Gross misconduct (theft, violence, intoxication on shift, safeguarding failures) is handled differently and can justify skipping straight to a final warning or dismissal. Take advice before you act from ACAS or Citizens Advice if you don’t have any HR support within your business. Then make sure you follow your own policy to the letter, and document everything.

Tone, clarity, listening

Three things decide whether a conversation lands as support or as an attack.

Tone. Professional, calm, supportive. You're not telling them off, you're working with them to keep their job. Sit at the same level. Drop the manager voice. Staff fear operators who enforce standards reactively and with visible frustration. They respect operators who enforce standards calmly, consistently, and early. 

Clarity. No vague references to "attitude" or "general performance." Be specific about behaviour, standards, and if there are any changes required be explicit about expected timescale. "Upsell procedure, trained on [date], acknowledged by [name]" is sufficient. "Induction completed" is not.

Active Listening. Every conversation needs a moment where they get to explain. Sometimes there's a reason you didn't know about: a family situation, a health issue, a genuine misunderstanding about what was expected. Some of those reasons change the conversation entirely.

Same words, same meeting, two different outcomes

Sit two different employees down for the same formal conversation, about the same behaviour, and watch what happens.

An employee whose values align with yours recognises the issue, feels regret, appreciates the clarity, and commits to change. An employee whose values don't align feels attacked, decides the standard is unfair and the manager unreasonable, and resigns because the behaviour experienced fits who they are, not who you need them to be.

That second outcome looks like a loss in the moment. It isn't. They were never going to perform to your standard, because they didn't share the values it's built on. The process just made that obvious in a few weeks instead of dragging it out for another six months of frustration on both sides.

In fact, more than half the time an owner formally starts this process, the employee resigns before the second step. That's not the process failing. That's the process working exactly as it should, sorting the team into the people who belong and the people who never really did.

What it's actually protecting

Run properly, this protects three things at once. 

Your standards, because standards you don't enforce aren't standards at all, they're wishes. Every one you let slide teaches the whole team the standard was never real. 

Your team, because good staff hate watching the wrong behaviour go unchallenged. Every shift where the unreliable one gets away with it, the reliable ones lose a little faith in you and a little pride in their work. 

The individual, because they get clarity, support, and a genuine chance to change. And if they ultimately leave, they leave because they chose not to meet a standard they fully understood, not because they were ambushed after months of being told everything was fine. 

You can be friendly and firm at the same time. The best operators always are.