Mary Schwartz and Beach Electrical Systems - Case Study Example

Mary Schwartz and Beach Electrical Systems The Role of Mary’s Past Work Record Mary was considered a model employee during the first years of her employment. However, past absentee rates for 2003 were over 27 percent, which is highly unacceptable. This means that out of 365 days, she was absent 99 days. There are many workers that perform highly and then lose motivation over time. Mary’s current problems with absenteeism are not justified by her previous work experience. The organization has many strategic objectives that must be fulfilled and requires a team focus in order to meet them effectively. This is something that is lacking in Mary’s performance and attitude. Mary’s absences pose many problems to the organization. Under social learning theory, employees will model behaviors of those in the workplace that they witness receiving reward or punishment (Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts & Chonko, 2009). Since Mary was never even given a warning for her past experience, there are risks that employees will model her behaviors. She was considered a credible role model and under social learning theory, employees might reproduce her behaviors believing they can also get away with higher absences. There is one problem, though. Mary’s excellent employment record is documented with employee appraisals. This means that in her employment file there is evidence that she is a model employee. This could make it more difficult for the organization to develop a case against her termination. It is only the opinion of the management team that she has suddenly failed to meet performance expectations. This can be easily challenged by her many merits in her employment file for performance success. From the point of view of the organization, the past employment record should not have anything to do with her being terminated today. However, legally, Mary has much support for winning an argument that she was wrongly terminated based on her track record. Due to her current negative attitude and ongoing absences, the business has the ethical right to terminate her employment. Management Right to Know The Health and Safety Executive warns that it is not good practice for companies to make assumptions about what causes an employee to be absent (Small Business, 2006). This is because there are many laws established that protect her. Mary is a protected class employee under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mathis & Jackson, 2005) and this makes the situation even more sensitive. However, from the organizational view, the business requires individuals who are team-focused and ready to contribute to meeting performance standards and strategic goals. The case study did not mention whether her employment contract had any information about working overtime, which could complicate matters even more. If she was an at-will employee, the business can ask for overtime to be worked without there being a contract demanding it from time to time. Barrett (2001) offers that people who hold counter-productive attitudes have the ability to influence others in the workplace. Refusing to cooperate to meet organizational objectives could rub off on other employees and impact morale or encourage similar behavior. It was already identified that Mary was not punished for her absenteeism. Therefore under social learning theory, people are seeing Mary being rewarded for her high absentee rates and might adopt these same behaviors. Ethically, the business does have a right to know. Legally, it is a very risky act to ask Mary what her personal reasons are, especially since this was the reason she was finally fired. Evaluating Arguments Mary can argue that she has employment protections under the EEOC as a protected class, this being a woman. Though this might be a weak argument, it still provides her protection against discriminatory practices. Would Mary win a legal battle with this argument, probably not, however it still complicates the situation. Mary can argue that her past performance record speaks for itself as a model employee. There is documentation for her performance appraisals that show her excellent performance on the job. There is a term called burden of proof, something Mary has if this is to become a legal battle for damages or to get her job back. She has considerable proof that she was an excellent employee. Since she also did not receive any documented warnings, she can quote the passage from the corporate policy that they failed to follow their own procedures properly. Mary also had illnesses leading to absence that were documented properly and authorized by doctors or other reputable forces. Mary is protected under the law for absences that have documented and approved illnesses and companies must make reasonable accommodations in this event. Mary has many factors in her argument that are stronger than the organization’s case against her. The organization can also argue that a verbal contract was put into motion between the organization and Mary when she was advised that her absences were becoming a burden to the company. Under business law, discussion about reducing the absences and agreement from Mary represents an implied, or quasi contract, that is enforceable (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz & Cross, 2004). Even though the contract was verbal, if there were witnesses to these discussions there could be a legal advantage for the organization. Outside of the legal situation, the organization really does not have much of an argument, other than ethical ones or at-will employment standards. Again, the business has the right to protect its competitive position and demand that employees assist in meeting strategic goals. Mary has counter-productive attitudes. If this case went to the legal system, Mary would probably win damages based on documentation under burden of proof. Voting in the Case As a member of the committee, I would want to vote in favor of the organization. This is because Mary is becoming a risk to the business with high absences and lack of motivation to meet business goals. However, there is a great deal of evidence that Mary was not given the proper warnings and that she had been a model employee. Mary’s absences are also protected from action by the business against the legal system since these were approved leaves by medical doctors. Even though Mary could influence others in the business to take similar absences, there really is not much of a case to vote in favor of the organization. Mary had never been given any warnings, either, related to lack of motivation or lack of cooperation. This makes voting in favor of the business even more difficult. There is absolutely no documentation that the business followed its processes properly. As a member of this committee, I would have obligations under the law to recognize and Mary is protected in each and every situation. In this committee, I would be a casual observer and looks only at the facts presented and weigh them against policy and legal protection. Under every argument, the evidence shows that the business did not follow its own termination policies properly and was simply retaliating for a one-time refusal to work overtime. Under the voting process in the committee and through the legal system, Mary would probably win a case based on solid evidence. Even if many organizational members argued that her absences were becoming a problem, they were justified. I would probably vote for Mary to be given back her position and witness her formal warning as a means to protect the business from this happening again in the future. References Barrett, Paul. (2001) “Pre-Employment Integrity Testing: Current Methods, Problems and Solutions”, University of Liverpool Dept of Clinical Psychology. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from http://www.pbarrett.net/presentations/integrity_doc.pdf Clarkson, K., Miller, R., Jentz, G. & Cross, F. (2004) West’s Business Law, 9th ed. Thomson South-Western. Mathis, R. and Jackson, J.H. (2005) Human Resource Management, 10th ed. Thomson South- Western. Neubert, M., Carlson, D., Kacmar, K., Roberts, J. & Chonko, L. (2009). “The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior: Evidence from the Field”, The Journal of Business Ethics 90(2), pp.157-170. Small Business. (2006). “How to Deal with Absence”. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from http://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/channels/employing-staff/guides-and-tips/30182/how-to-deal-with-absence.thtml Read More