Employment manual and the legal framework at Widget Company is clear and is followed to the latter in ensuring a conducive working environment for the staff. This is meant to ensure fairness, respect and hence enhance the productivity of the workers. The principles are again important in ensuring that senior workers do not take advantage of their juniors in any way. Any legal action should strictly follow the Widget Company principles as the standard upon which the action can be tethered.
There a quite a number of facts which are highlighted in this. The first issue is about Ms Tracker who was upset that I approved a transfer in her division without her consent. Though it is true I approved the transfer without consulting her, I have been given the power as the human resource manager. I respect protocol but I can still make a decision to the best interest of Widget Company.
The other issue is about the report Trucker gave three months ago about Ms Duarte. Following my investigation through interrogating Ms Shy, it has come out that Ms Duarte was performing her duties as expected. Through my personal judgment I think Ms Trucker was not genuine. I associate this kind of allegation with the argument we had three years ago about the transfers I gave without her consent even though the division affected was hers. My action was that I transferred Shy to the warehouse division for I did not want her punished on bases of allegations.
After the transfer to the warehouse division, Shy was absorbed as a new recruit. According to article (ii) individual(s) can only be treated as new recruits after they are laid off and they need to be recruited for a second time. Shy’s case was different. She had not been laid off but was on the company but a different division. I think she should be treated as a new recruit and hence she should be considered for any relevant promotion.
Widget employees are entitled for a leave in case of ill health or the normal annual leave. Shy’s leave was in-order. The only problem was with the delay of Shy after the leave was granted. The company has the sole authority to hire and fire. But before Shy was fired she had been given a letter of warning and consequently fired. This is the stand of the Widget Company that any staff who does not abide by the rules and ethics of the company should be fired. Widget Company explained the reason of firing Shy though it could have gone ahead to terminate the contract without giving any reason according to the personnel manual. The only shortcoming in the way Shy was fired is that she was notified 60 days prior to the sack.
The Company stood by its own principles by paying Shy 5 days pay for short notice that she was being laid off. This would compensate for any inconvenience caused.
Another pertinent issue is that, Shy came claiming that she did not receive the warning letter from the human resource manager. Either it is true that she did not receive the letter or she received but neglected her duty. Investigation is necessary to establish the truth. If it comes out that Trucker did not deliver the letter, then she will responsible for the firing of Ms Shy. She should be compelled to compensate her as per the existing compensation rates. Even then, Shy should not be reinstated not unless she is re-hired because with or without the letter of sacking, she had exceeded the leave days without any explanation. If it turns out that Shy was served with the letter of warning and neglected her job, then the Company will keep its decision of her being fired.
Widget Company would not let things happen without a clear explanation of the problem and seek a lasting solution. As a result it has established a channel of complaints. According to article V of the bargaining agreement, staffs who feels uncomfortable with the working conditions or any other problem in the company should report to the immediate supervisor. If the supervisor does not give a satisfactorily solution then the worker is free to consult the human resource office. The personnel manual specifies some of that unfair treatment to include discrimination along whatever line be it racial or economic. Based on this article, Shy cannot claim that she was not attended for the case would have gone to her supervisor and if she is not properly attended, then it would have landed in my office something which did not happen. So such a claim cannot and should not be used as a defense against the decision to lay her off.
Allegations are not enough to hold one responsible for some did not unless they are backed by evidence. Allegations by Shy about Trucker calling Duarte an illegal is a matter investigation. If it is true that Trucker was discriminating Duarter along the refugee case, then she should be compelled to compensate for defamation for Duarte had already acquired legal documents to allow to live and work in the United States of America. She is legally in the United States of America and I hired her legally too. These allegations cannot wholly adopted though to saying that Trucker is responsible for due to the differences they have had with Ms Shy, it could turn out to be untrue. Widget Company does not allow workers to build cases against others for them to be fired.
Sexual harassment in the company is prohibited according the sexual harassment article in the personnel manual. Allegations by Shy that Trucker was harassing her are a serious allegation and needs a thorough investigation. If it turns out that Shy was harassed, then actions need to be taken against trucker to be a lesson to her and others with a similar behavior. Whether tracker did harass Shy or not, the records are straight and show that Tracker had not attended any of the sexual harassment sessions. This on its own is a case to answer for all the supervisors are supposed to attend the sessions at-least once a year. Duarte case should be special in the sense that she had not been fired but was only working in a different division. She should be treated as a senior and not new hire.