Hospitality Performance Check-Ins and Managing Underperformance Fairly

Regular performance check-ins should make expectations clear before a problem becomes formal. When underperformance does occur, a fair process identifies the specific gap, gathers evidence, tells the employee what the meeting is about, listens to their response, agrees reasonable improvement and support, documents the outcome and follows up.

Do not treat every mistake as misconduct, run a disciplinary meeting in the middle of service, or use a universal “three warnings” rule. Awards, agreements, contracts, workplace policies and the facts can change the process. Obtain workplace-relations advice before formal warnings, disciplinary action or dismissal.

Separate four types of conversation

Everyday feedback

Immediate, specific guidance about a task: “The close record needs the refrigerator action completed, not only the reading.”

Regular check-in

A planned private discussion about role expectations, strengths, workload, training, goals and support.

Underperformance process

A structured response where work is not meeting the required standard, with evidence, employee response, improvement actions and follow-up.

Conduct or serious misconduct process

Behavioural concerns may require a different process. Serious misconduct has a specific Fair Work meaning and should not be assumed. Seek advice.

Using the wrong label can make a small coaching issue unnecessarily threatening or cause a serious issue to be handled too casually.

Confirm the employment framework

Before addressing underperformance, check:

• applicable award or registered agreement;
• employment contract;
• position description;
• workplace policies;
• prior training and instructions;
• probation status;
• lawful role requirements;
• any protected reason, leave, illness, disability, injury, complaint or workplace right that may be relevant; and
• who has authority to conduct the process.

The Fair Work Ombudsman advises employers to consider applicable rules and to use a fair, reasonable process. Adverse action, discrimination, bullying, unfair dismissal, workers compensation and privacy issues may arise depending on the facts.

Do not predetermine an outcome because a worker is casual, on probation or employed by a small business. Different rules may apply, but basic fact-finding and advice remain important.

Set clear, observable expectations

Performance expectations should connect to the role:

• customer service behaviours;
• recipe, portion or presentation standards;
• food-safety and WHS procedures;
• punctuality and attendance notification;
• order accuracy;
• opening, closing and handover completion;
• teamwork and communication;
• equipment care;
• cash and POS controls; and
• supervisory responsibilities.

Avoid vague requirements such as “show more passion” or “have a better attitude”. Describe what needs to occur, when, to what standard and how it is checked.

Confirm the employee has received the relevant training, tools, rostered time and supervision. A person cannot reliably meet a standard that was never explained or is impossible under the current work design.

Run short regular check-ins

For a small venue, 15–30 minutes at a sensible frequency may be more useful than one annual review.

Use the same core agenda:

1. What is working well?
2. What has been difficult?
3. Are role priorities and standards clear?
4. What feedback does each person have?
5. Is training, equipment, roster or support needed?
6. What one or two actions will occur before the next check-in?
7. When will progress be reviewed?

Record a concise factual note and give the employee access to agreed actions. Do not create a secret file of minor comments that were never raised with them.

Check-ins should not replace required consultation, grievance, WHS or formal employment processes.

Identify underperformance specifically

The Fair Work Ombudsman recommends identifying examples, timing, why the issue matters and what needs to improve.

Gather:

• dated examples;
• relevant procedure or role standard;
• training records;
• work output or reliable operational data;
• previous feedback;
• customer feedback checked for accuracy;
• roster, workload, equipment or system context; and
• the impact on service, safety, colleagues or the business.

Avoid selective evidence. One anonymous complaint or one unusually busy shift may not establish an ongoing problem. Equally, repeated food-safety failures need prompt control and may require removing the person from a task while facts are reviewed.

Distinguish capability, clarity, resources, conduct, attendance and health-related issues. Each may need a different response.

Check for inconsistency and bias

Before formalising a concern, compare how the same standard has been applied to others. Consider whether the evidence is affected by shift allocation, training opportunity, language, disability, age, caring responsibilities, union activity, a workplace complaint or another protected attribute or right.

Consistency does not mean identical treatment regardless of circumstances. It means using a defensible standard, hearing relevant facts and obtaining advice where different support or adjustment may be required.

Ask another authorised manager or adviser to review the evidence in higher-risk cases. Remove loaded descriptions such as “lazy” or “not a culture fit” and replace them with the observed task, date, standard and impact.

Keep safety action separate from final findings

If a food-safety, WHS, cash or customer risk needs immediate control, reassign or stop the task within lawful authority and explain the interim purpose. Continue fact-finding and give the employee an opportunity to respond. An immediate operational control should not be described as proof that the allegation is established.

Assess before the meeting

Ask:

• How serious is the gap?
• How long has it occurred?
• Was the standard clear?
• Has the employee been trained and observed?
• Are equipment, staffing or instructions contributing?
• Have similar cases been treated consistently?
• Is there a safety, discrimination, workplace-right or health issue?
• Does a policy, award, agreement or contract set steps?
• Is specialist advice needed now?

If immediate risk exists, protect people, food, money or systems using a proportionate interim control. Do not present an interim step as a final finding.

Prepare the employee

Tell the employee:

• the purpose of the meeting;
• the concerns to be discussed;
• the relevant documents;
• date, time and private location;
• who will attend;
• that they may bring a support person where appropriate; and
• that they will have an opportunity to respond.

Give reasonable time to prepare. A support person supports the employee; their exact role can depend on the process and circumstances.

Choose a location away from customers and colleagues. Do not hold a formal performance discussion at the pass, on the floor or in a group chat.

Conduct the meeting fairly

1. Explain the purpose and process.
2. Describe each concern with specific evidence.
3. Explain the required standard and impact.
4. Ask for the employee’s response.
5. Listen and clarify without arguing.
6. Pause if new information needs investigation.
7. Discuss possible causes, support and improvement.
8. Confirm next steps, responsibilities and review date.

The employee may identify unclear training, inconsistent instruction, workload, a workplace conflict, disability, injury, family responsibilities, leave or another issue. Do not demand unnecessary medical detail. Obtain HR or legal advice about reasonable adjustments, privacy and protected rights where relevant.

Do not ask the employee to sign a record as agreement if they only acknowledge receipt. Allow them to comment on the accuracy of notes.

Build a practical improvement plan

The plan should include:

• specific performance or behaviour to improve;
• expected standard;
• examples or measures;
• actions by the employee;
• training, coaching, equipment or adjustment supplied by the employer;
• check-in dates;
• reasonable review period;
• evidence used;
• manager responsible; and
• possible consequences if improvement does not occur, where appropriate and properly advised.

Use measures the employee can influence. “No customer complaints” is not a fair standalone measure because some complaints may be unrelated or unreasonable. “Follow the approved complaint handoff and complete the record for observed cases” is more specific.

The time allowed depends on the role, gap, seriousness and opportunity to demonstrate improvement. Do not use an arbitrary period copied from another business.

Monitor and support

Observe work at fair opportunities. Give feedback during the plan, not only at the end. Record:

• date and context;
• expected and observed performance;
• coaching given;
• employee response;
• support provided;
• progress;
• remaining gap; and
• next action.

Recognise improvement. If the plan is working, say so. If the standard or training was wrong, correct the system.

Avoid excessive monitoring that is humiliating, inconsistent or unrelated to the role. Check privacy, surveillance and consultation requirements before introducing new monitoring technology.

Review and decide

At the review meeting:

• compare evidence with each agreed standard;
• give the employee an opportunity to respond;
• acknowledge improvements;
• identify any remaining gap;
• confirm further support or a revised period where appropriate;
• document the outcome; and
• obtain advice before a warning, role change or dismissal.

Fair Work guidance says dismissal should be a final resort in an underperformance process and employers must meet notice, final-pay and unfair-dismissal requirements. The exact legal pathway depends on the case.

Do not promise that following a template makes a dismissal lawful.

Protect records and dignity

Keep performance records restricted to authorised people. Separate factual performance material from gossip or unnecessary medical detail. Do not discuss the process with the wider team beyond what is operationally necessary.

The Privacy Act employee-records exemption is not a blanket rule for every collection, organisation, use or disclosure. Check coverage and other workplace laws.

If a roster or duty must change, communicate the operational change without disclosing private reasons.

Worked scenario: incomplete closing records

A supervisor repeatedly signs the close sheet but leaves refrigerator exceptions without actions. The manager first checks the procedure, training and workload. The supervisor received the procedure, but two recent closes were short-staffed and the escalation contact was unclear.

The manager fixes the escalation contact and provides a realistic close allocation. At a private check-in, they show three dated examples, explain the required action and ask for the supervisor’s response. They agree on observed closes, a refresher and a two-week review.

The next records improve, but one action is still missed. The follow-up uses the agreed evidence and adds targeted coaching. The response addresses both system design and individual responsibility.

Common mistakes

• Waiting until frustration builds.
• Giving vague feedback without the required standard.
• Treating one error as established underperformance.
• Ignoring workload, training and equipment.
• Holding the meeting publicly or without notice.
• Refusing to hear the employee’s response.
• Using a universal warning count or improvement period.
• Setting measures the employee cannot control.
• Collecting unnecessary health information.
• Predetermining dismissal before the process.
• Keeping secret notes of issues never raised.
• Assuming a template guarantees legal compliance.

Performance check-in and underperformance checklist

• ☐ Confirm award, agreement, contract, policy and role expectations.
• ☐ Use clear, observable standards.
• ☐ Schedule regular private check-ins.
• ☐ Give prompt, specific everyday feedback.
• ☐ Gather balanced evidence and operational context.
• ☐ Assess seriousness, causes and protected-right risks.
• ☐ Tell the employee the purpose and provide relevant material.
• ☐ Allow preparation, support and a genuine response.
• ☐ Agree specific improvement, employer support and review dates.
• ☐ Monitor fairly and recognise progress.
• ☐ Keep factual, restricted records.
• ☐ Review evidence with the employee.
• ☐ Obtain workplace-relations advice before formal action or dismissal.

Take the next useful action

Choose one role and write five observable expectations for a normal shift. Compare them with the position description, induction and current SOPs. If the standard exists only in the manager’s head, clarify it before evaluating the employee.

Use the Free Hospitality Checklists to support clear completion standards. The Hospitality Operations Master Collection provides editable operating tools. Connect expectations to the staff induction checklist.

General-information limitation: General operational information only, not workplace-relations, legal, payroll, medical or HR advice. Confirm the applicable award, agreement, contract, policy, protected rights, privacy duties and fair process with the Fair Work Ombudsman and a qualified Australian workplace-relations adviser before formal warnings, disciplinary action, role changes or dismissal.

References

• Managing performance and warnings, Fair Work Ombudsman. Accessed 25 August 2026.
• Managing underperformance best practice guide, Fair Work Ombudsman. Accessed 25 August 2026.
• Small business, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Accessed 25 August 2026.
• Employee records exemption, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Accessed 25 August 2026.

Source review date: 25 August 2026