Corrective Action & Performance Improvement Policy

Purpose

Define how Blinto addresses repeated performance, attendance, conduct, or accountability concerns in a fair, documented, improvement-focused way.

The purpose of corrective action is to make expectations clear, support improvement, protect team and client reliability, and create a consistent record when problems continue.

Corrective action is not intended to be a punishment ladder. The response should be proportionate to the seriousness, frequency, impact, history, and circumstances of the issue.

Scope

This policy applies company-wide to recurring or material concerns involving areas such as:

• attendance or punctuality;
• failure to meet role expectations;
• repeated missed commitments;
• avoidable delivery or quality problems;
• failure to follow approved company processes;
• inappropriate workplace behavior;
• repeated communication or accountability failures; and
• other performance or conduct issues requiring formal improvement.

Approved leave, protected rights, authorized accommodations, genuine emergencies, and other valid exceptions must not be treated as misconduct simply because they affect attendance or work availability.

Serious misconduct, security incidents, fraud, harassment, violence, deliberate misuse of company/client assets, or another high-severity matter may require a separate investigation or immediate escalation rather than the ordinary progressive sequence below.

Core Principles

Corrective action at Blinto should follow these principles:

• Improvement first. The objective is to correct the issue where reasonably possible.
• Clear expectations. The employee should understand what is wrong and what acceptable performance or conduct looks like.
• Proportionate response. Minor, isolated issues should not automatically receive the same response as serious or repeated issues.
• Consistency. Similar cases should be handled consistently while still considering relevant circumstances.
• Documentation. Formal stages should create a clear record of the concern, expectation, support, and next step.
• Opportunity to respond. The employee should have a reasonable opportunity to explain relevant facts before formal action is finalized.
• No universal automatic counting rule. Blinto does not use one rigid occurrence counter for every type of performance or conduct issue. The approved HRMS late-arrival sequence in Automated Monthly Late-Arrival Escalation is a specific exception for punctuality administration.

Progressive Corrective Action Framework

The normal framework is progressive, but a manager and People Operations may repeat, combine, or skip stages where the seriousness or history of the issue justifies it.

Stage 1 — Coaching / Verbal Reminder

Use for an initial minor concern or an early pattern that can reasonably be corrected through direct feedback.

The manager should:

1. explain the concern using specific examples;
2. restate the expected standard;
3. understand whether a blocker, misunderstanding, or support need exists;
4. agree on the immediate improvement expected; and
5. make a brief management note where useful for continuity.

This stage is normally informal and improvement-focused.

Stage 2 — Documented Warning

Use when:

• the issue repeats after coaching;
• the issue is more significant than a routine first-time mistake; or
• a documented intervention is reasonably necessary.

The documented warning should include:

• the concern and relevant examples;
• the expected standard;
• prior coaching or relevant history, where applicable;
• the improvement required;
• any support or resources being provided;
• a reasonable review period or follow-up point where applicable; and
• the consequence that continued non-improvement may lead to further corrective action.

The employee should be given an opportunity to respond or provide relevant context.

Stage 3 — Formal Written Warning / Performance Improvement Plan

Use where a material issue continues, performance is substantially below required expectations, or a structured improvement plan is needed.

A formal warning or Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) should define:

• the specific performance, conduct, or reliability gap;
• measurable or observable expectations;
• the support, coaching, tools, or clarification being provided;
• the review period;
• check-in responsibility;
• how improvement will be assessed; and
• the possible next action if sufficient improvement does not occur.

A PIP should not be used merely to create paperwork. It should be used when a structured improvement period can reasonably help resolve the problem.

Stage 4 — Further Formal Action

If a serious issue remains unresolved after appropriate corrective steps, or if the matter is sufficiently serious to justify escalation, People Operations and the responsible leadership may consider further action consistent with:

• applicable law;
• the employee's contract;
• company policy;
• documented facts; and
• any required investigation or due process.

Further action may include reassignment, change of responsibility, final warning, or employment action where lawfully and appropriately authorized.

No manager should independently promise or execute termination or another major employment action outside the company's authorized People Operations and leadership process.

When Stages May Be Skipped

A later stage may be used without completing every earlier stage when reasonably justified by factors such as:

• seriousness of the conduct;
• material client or company impact;
• safety or security risk;
• deliberate misconduct;
• repeated similar issues already addressed previously;
• dishonesty or concealment;
• significant policy breach; or
• another circumstance where ordinary coaching would clearly be insufficient.

Skipping a stage should be documented and reviewed with People Operations.

When a Stage May Be Repeated

A stage may be repeated when:

• the issue is minor but recurring;
• meaningful improvement occurred but consistency is not yet established;
• a new but related issue appears;
• additional coaching or clarification is reasonably more appropriate than immediate escalation; or
• the employee had a legitimate mitigating circumstance.

Progression should be based on the overall pattern and facts, not simply an occurrence counter.

Attendance-Specific Use

Attendance and punctuality rules are defined in Attendance Policy.

Late arrival after the monthly automatic allowance follows the HRMS-managed sequence in Automated Monthly Late-Arrival Escalation.

That attendance-specific sequence is intentionally deterministic so the same punctuality rule is applied consistently and can be automated.

Other attendance concerns—including repeated absence, missed required meetings, early departure, failure to communicate, disputed records, or continued lateness after the automatic sequence—may move into the broader corrective-action framework in this policy.

Before any further formal action, People Operations should confirm that approved leave, schedule exceptions, emergencies, record corrections, and other valid exceptions have been separated from actual non-compliance.

Performance-Specific Use

Ordinary performance feedback, coaching, growth discussions, and periodic reviews should remain part of normal management and the Performance Review process.

Corrective action is appropriate when a performance gap is:

• material;
• recurring;
• insufficiently improved after normal feedback; or
• serious enough that formal expectations and documentation are required.

Not every low score, mistake, or missed target should automatically trigger a PIP.

Documentation Standard

Formal corrective-action records should normally include:

• employee name or ID;
• date;
• manager;
• People Operations reviewer where applicable;
• issue/category;
• specific facts or examples;
• relevant prior action;
• employee explanation or response;
• expected improvement;
• support/resources provided;
• review date or period;
• next-step consequence if the issue continues; and
• outcome or follow-up result.

Records should be factual, professional, limited to relevant information, and maintained through the approved confidential People Operations process.

Roles & Approval

Team/Department Lead

• identifies and communicates performance or conduct concerns;
• provides timely coaching;
• documents relevant facts;
• works with People Operations before formal escalation; and
• monitors agreed improvement.

People Operations

• reviews formal corrective action for consistency;
• maintains confidential records;
• helps determine the appropriate stage;
• ensures relevant approved exceptions are considered;
• coordinates PIPs and formal warnings; and
• escalates major employment decisions appropriately.

CEO / Authorized Leadership

• reviews major company-level employment actions or exceptional cases where required by the company's approval structure.

Employee Response & Review

Before a formal warning or PIP is finalized, the employee should normally have an opportunity to:

• understand the concern;
• respond to the facts;
• explain relevant circumstances;
• identify incorrect records or missing context; and
• understand the required improvement and review process.

Disagreement with a warning does not automatically invalidate it, but the employee's response should be considered and may be recorded with the corrective-action documentation.

Completion & Reset

Corrective action should not remain permanently active when the issue has been resolved.

When the employee demonstrates the required sustained improvement, the manager and People Operations should close the active improvement action and record the outcome.

Past documented history may still be considered when materially relevant to a later recurring issue, but progression should not be based on a simplistic permanent occurrence count.

Exceptions & Escalation

Escalate directly to People Operations when:

• the issue may involve serious misconduct;
• facts are disputed or unclear;
• discrimination, harassment, retaliation, fraud, safety, security, or legal concerns may be involved;
• a manager has a conflict of interest;
• the employee disputes a formal record;
• a PIP or formal written warning is being considered;
• a major employment action may result; or
• the appropriate corrective stage is unclear.

Related Resources

• Automated Monthly Late-Arrival Escalation — Attendance Policy
• Performance Review
• Employee Offboarding