4 ms·
It might be slightly mitigated since the panel has the opportunity to bring back the employee if they have follow-up questions but I'd agree and would want to e
by makoz 8y ago
It might be slightly mitigated since the panel has the opportunity to bring back the employee if they have follow-up questions but I'd agree and would want to experiment with the ordering.
The manager isn't present during the employee's presentation either though, and I'd imagine it would devolve into a circus if both parties are present during both presentations and able to interrupt/rebut directly. (Might also not be beneficial to the employee)
- aerotwelve 8y agoIf these were real grievance hearings, both parties would be able to be present during each other's presentation, cross-examine witnesses, and present (and/or challenge) evidence used to make a decision on what to do with the employee. Could it become a circus? Yes, if procedural ground rules are not well-defined and enforced by the moderator of these sessions. One of these should be the obvious "don't interrupt each other while one side is speaking". I know these aren't supposed to be formal legal proceedings by design, but if the parties cannot question each other -- or even hear what the other has to say! -- then there seems to be a strict upper bound to the degree of "truth" that a jury could uncover during this process. EDIT: I didn't notice your disclaimer when I wrote this; I absolutely did not mean to give off the impression that you or your colleagues @ Amazon didn't take your responsibilities as appeal committee members seriously or didn't do your job properly. Hopefully you didn't take it that way, but re-reading this thread made me want to clarify.
- walshemj 8y agoCitrine, Roberts and input from the legal system could well be used for this.