Grievance and disciplinary meetings using interpreter – 3 things to avoid.
I have previously written about the importance of using
independent interpreters during grievance, redundancy and disciplinary hearings - Understanding foreign workforce. Many
businesses appreciate the value of external interpreters in those types of
meetings, however, from my experience they do not always know how to benefit
from interpreter’s impartiality.
I have been asked to do that and I was left with an employee for 30 minutes, despite my objections. Interpreters only need up to 5 minutes of a brief conversation with the employee to establish we speak the same language/dialect and to explain interpreter’s role and interpreting procedure. Interpreters are not HR consultants, employment lawyers or colleagues who provide support during the meeting. I find that creating time for “consultation” confuses everybody as to the interpreter’s role. When I was in that situation the employees have asked for advice, support, information about employment law and complained endlessly about the company who engaged my services and was paying my invoices. I was even given some shop floor gossip about the HR staff. Those situations not only make the interpreter uncomfortable, but they also affect their impartiality.
In my experience the employees in most cases are not particularly happy after the meetings and interpreters are not there to be vented on.
Despite the fact that we share a language, we are not friends or colleagues. Interpreter is there in a professional capacity. Ideally the employee should leave the meeting first and the interpreter should be given an opportunity to speak to the business representatives who engaged them in case there are any issues to discuss in relation to their agreement of services provision. Employee should not be privy to discussions in relation to agreements between two businesses: that of the employer and that of the interpreter.
Here are three things to avoid:
- Asking the interpreter to consult on the matter in question with the employee before the meeting
I have been asked to do that and I was left with an employee for 30 minutes, despite my objections. Interpreters only need up to 5 minutes of a brief conversation with the employee to establish we speak the same language/dialect and to explain interpreter’s role and interpreting procedure. Interpreters are not HR consultants, employment lawyers or colleagues who provide support during the meeting. I find that creating time for “consultation” confuses everybody as to the interpreter’s role. When I was in that situation the employees have asked for advice, support, information about employment law and complained endlessly about the company who engaged my services and was paying my invoices. I was even given some shop floor gossip about the HR staff. Those situations not only make the interpreter uncomfortable, but they also affect their impartiality.
- Leaving the interpreter with the employee after the meeting for the same reasons as above
In my experience the employees in most cases are not particularly happy after the meetings and interpreters are not there to be vented on.
- Asking the interpreter to leave with the employee or give them a lift
Despite the fact that we share a language, we are not friends or colleagues. Interpreter is there in a professional capacity. Ideally the employee should leave the meeting first and the interpreter should be given an opportunity to speak to the business representatives who engaged them in case there are any issues to discuss in relation to their agreement of services provision. Employee should not be privy to discussions in relation to agreements between two businesses: that of the employer and that of the interpreter.
Theses are just the most basic and common issues I sometimes
come across when interpreting in those situations. If you have any questions or
would like to discuss your experiences, fell free to comment or email me: agata@thelinguist.co.uk.
Comments
Post a Comment