Fluent Essays

omplete the cases and exercises from   Nkomo,   Fottler, and   McAfee (2011) show below in a Microsoft Word document.  Case 15 (page 50) Incident 93 (page 269) Case 98 (page 276)Case 15. The Broken Employment Contract? Arthur Wayne was shocked as he walked out of Sara Bell’s office. It was hard for him to understand what had just transpired. Bell, treasurer of EcoCare, a large health insurance company located in Michigan, had just told Wayne of the decision to terminate his employment and had requested his immediate resignation in return for a severance pay arrangement whereby he would continue to receive his salary for six months or until he found other employment. As he looked at the date on his watch calendar, May 7, Wayne realized that he had been hired exactly five years ago by Bell. Bell had told Wayne that EcoCare was not satisfied with his administration of the company car program and that, given the number of complaints about the program from other employees, it was in the best interest of the company to ask for his immediate resignation. Wayne, assistant to the treasurer, had been in charge of the program for the past year. During a meeting the day before with both Bell and the vice president of operations, George Findlay, he had been unable to explain why there were so many complaints about the program. One such complaint had involved the claim that someone had set back the odometers on several company cars while the vehicles were under Wayne’s control. After his termination, Wayne requested that the decision to ask for his resignation be reviewed by the company president and the chairperson of the board of trustees of EcoCare. Wayne felt that he had been wrongfully discharged and had been under the impression that he had a contract for continued employment as long as his performance was satisfactory. He further maintained that his supervisor had not properly followed the termination policies and procedures of EcoCare. In preparation for the review, the president asked the director of human resources, Chris Miller, to investigate the facts of the situation and the events leading up to Wayne’s termination. Human Resource Department’s Investigation In order to prepare its report for the president, the human resource department decided not only to reviewWayne’s personnel file but also to interview Wayne, Bell, and others involved in the case. Two weeks later, Miller prepared the following summary of what had been learned. After seven years with a local bank in Michigan, Arthur Wayne sought the assistance of an employment agency to obtain a job that would give him more opportunities for advancement. Wayne had graduated with a degree in Business Administration and had completed 15 hours toward his MBA in Finance. The employment agency referred him to our company. After several pre-employment interviews and a psychological test, Wayne was hired as an assistant to the company treasurer, Sara Bell. His duties primarily consisted of analyzing and preparing certain financial reports under the direction of Bell. Wayne came to us with excellent work experience and admirable references from his previous employerLabor Relations Case 98. Union Organizing at SGA Industries Introduction President White sat in his office at SGA Industries thinking about the union election taking place at the plant auditorium. He felt that the company had waged a successful campaign to persuade workers that their best interests would be served only if the company remained union-free. As he awaited the election results, his mind began to wander back to the events leading up to today’s election. Background SGA Industries is known as the world’s largest producer of women’s hosiery and employs approximately 6,500 people at ten plants in five communities in Georgia and South Carolina. The company’s headquarters is located in Anderson, Georgia. The company’s sales subsidiary, SGA Inc., has 12 offices in major market areas throughout the United States and sells its products directly to distributors around the world. The company’s strategy of strong identification with the customer has made SGA one of the most recognized names in the entire hosiery industry. SGA was founded in 1907 by Sam Gerome Anderson. Anderson built the company, and the surrounding community was named after him in 1910. Ever since, the fortunes of Anderson residents have been interwoven with those of SGA. Over the years the company supported the community, donating land and money for churches, schools, and hospitals, and providing jobs for nearly a third of the town’s residents. As the years passed, further expansion and product diversification occurred, and the company gained a reputation as an industry leader in the design, production, and marketing of women’s and men’s hosiery and undergarments. After the death of the last Anderson family member, SGA was managed by four chief executive officers in less than a dozen years. Then, the company was purchased for $550 million by Jack Phillips who is a well-known Atlanta entrepreneur and business leader. Soon after the purchase, Phillips appointed Ted White as president of SGA. Labor-Management Relations Over the years, SGA enjoyed a reputation as a steady job provider in an unstable industry. The company provided for its workers and treated them like family members. Many believe that the company’s generosity to both its employees and the town of Anderson helped to defeat an earlier union organizing drive by the Textile Workers of America, by a vote of 3,937 to 1,782. At the time of the vote, the chairman called it “an expression of confidence by employees.” The SGA vote was viewed as a severe blow to union organizing efforts in the South. When Phillips purchased SGA, he announced that his major goals would be to improve the community and to improve the quality of life for SGA employees and their families. Phillips invested over $100 million to reach these goals. The total included funds for pay increases; new job benefits; capital improvements, including the use of robots on the production line; community improvements; and other contributiIncident 93. Can He Wear an Earring at Work? Peter Wood was hired as a personal services representative at South Town Bank, a small bank serving South Town for over 30 years. The bank had a reputation for being one of the more conservative places of employment in town. Because it offered good wages and benefits, the bank had no problems finding employees. Personal service representatives sat at desks in the wood panel lobby of the bank to assist bank customers with account queries and other problems. All bank personnel were required to dress according to company rules. Men were expected to wear dress shirts and ties, while women were required to wear dresses or skirts. Recently the bank instituted “Casual Friday” on the last Friday of each month. On that Friday, employees could wear business casual clothes. Men could wear golf shirts or other shirts with collars. Women could wear slacks with appropriate blouses and/or sweaters. No jeans, shorts, halter tops, or t-shirts were allowed. Employees with tattoos were required to wear clothes that would cover tattoos. When Wood reported for his first day at South Town Bank, he came dressed appropriately in a shirt and tie. He also had a discreet, but noticeable gold loop earring in his left earlobe. When the branch manager saw the earring, he told Wood to remove the earring since it was not consistent with the bank’s employee dress policy. Wood became upset and pointed out that no one had told him during the employment interview that he could not wear an earring to work. The branch manager pointed out that if Wood had worn the earring during the job interview, he probably would not have been hired. He further stated that, because of the earring, Wood did not present the professional image the bank desired for its personal service representatives. Wood pointed out that female personal service representatives were allowed to wear earrings at work. The branch manager said it was customary in society for women to wear earrings but not men. He again asked Wood to remove the earring. When he refused, Wood was fired. Wood felt that he had been discriminated against and vowed that he would take legal action against. The following statement regarding earrings appeared in the employee handbook: “Visible jewelry must be small and tasteful as determined by management. Jewelry must not interfere with job performance.” Questions Is Peter Wood a victim of discrimination? Evaluate the branch manager’s comment that Wood would not have been hired had he worn the earring during the employment interview. Evaluate South Town Bank’s dress policy. Is it clear? Is it appropriate? Is it legal?