3. (3)Evidence of the employee’s acknowledgement of a problem identified, receipt of a policy statement or evidence of an employee’s agreement to abide by the direction given in the document.
   

Now, I will not argue that asking for employee signatures is a bad idea.  At worst, it does not harm – at best, it provides evidence of something.   However, I have concerns about requiring signatures.  The core reasons are somewhat troubling, especially when better communications and good HR practices accomplish the same goals.

HR should follow up with the employee about the document or documents.  It will be more effective than merely looking for a signature on a checklist.

1. *When the Manager reports that a disciplinary letter was issued, HR will add value by calling the employee a week later to confirm that the right message was received.  If the employee says “what disciplinary letter,” the problem is not with a missing signature, but with the Manager.  It also sends a stronger message to the underperforming employee that the organization stands behind the Manager.
   

1. *If there is a global policy change, HR will add value by following up at staff meetings or by send emails to confirm that everyone received the document and understands it.  This will provide additional evidence that the information was received and, more importantly, that the message is understood.
   

Some supervisors unknowingly ascribe to the “I told you so” theory of management.   If an employee was informed of an issue but denies knowledge, I see little reason that a supervisor needs to “prove” it to that employee.  For example, an employee comes in late for the 5th time this month.  You met with him about the problem last time (2 weeks ago) and he promised it would not happen again.  He claims you never warned him about this before?  Will a signed letter really impact what employment decision you should make?

Ah, but wait, you say . . . . our legal department wants the proof in case the person files suit.  This is the one legitimate issue, but it is overused in some Companies to the point that it has become ridiculous.  An employee signs a job application and a policy book, but must also sign a separate policy regarding use of safety glasses, insider trading, HAZMAT, CT-PAT, Sarbanes-Oxley, or whatever is the hot button issue for the Company (or the government) that week.  (Personally, I have signed no less than 10 documents promising not to bribe a foreign official, and I still am waiting for the first opportunity.)

The question I have is whether it is more important that the Company can “prove” that the employee knew he had to wear his safety glasses when an OSHA inspector comes on site, or is it more important that the employee actually be wearing his glasses.

Even though HR may lose the argument, WE need to be the ones fighting the required signature.  WE should fervently argue for TWO required signatures – on the job application and on one form from every employee attending an annual meeting to review critical policies.  The signed statement from the policy review will be very simple:

“I understand that I am still an employee-at-will AND that I am required to follow all policies and procedures of the Company.  I have attended the annual policy training class and I know where I can obtain copies of any policies should I want to review them.”

If we want policies followed, this is a much more effective use of Human Resources time rather than checking off names and reviewing documents for signatures.