Can we dismiss an employee after three reprimands, even if they aren't all for the same reason?

It  would not be recommended. Progressive disciplinary plans are put in place to improve an employee's performance or to correct unacceptable behaviors, and generally they give the worker a few chances to get it right.

The result of the process is either a reformed employee or documentation to support the worker's discharge. When the reasons for the reprimands aren't aligned, you've given the employee only one chance to improve on each unacceptable item, which probably doesn't follow your own policy or build a strong case for discharge.

You should ensure that both employer and employee get the intended benefit from a progressive disciplinary plan—namely, good talent for the organization, a job for the worker and strong documentation.

To do that, you must know which offenses your policy covers and which are egregious enough to warrant immediate dismissal. When an employee is eligible for the plan, how many chances do they have to improve? A common strategy is to give three reprimands, with the third being a final warning. This shows that the employee was told what was unacceptable and how to correct it; was told again, with any clarifications needed; and then was given one last chance to improve, knowing their job was now in jeopardy. Many wrongful termination cases are won by employees who claim they had no idea that their performance or behaviors weren't acceptable or that their job was in jeopardy, making the stated reasons for termination seem like a pretext.

Therefore, to show you had a reasonable complaint against the employee and wanted to give that worker the opportunity to improve as outlined in the disciplinary plan, the three warnings should all relate to the same behavior. It won't work, for example, if, over the course of six months, an employee has been spoken to once for absenteeism, a second time about missing a deadline and on a third occasion for a minor safety infraction. What would you be terminating them for? They might not have missed any more work or deadlines in that same time period (which was the initial goal of your plan), so basing a discharge on a minor safety infraction in that case would not be fair and likely would not stand up in court.