The purpose of this paper is to apply a critical understanding to common workplace misconduct that organizations are witness to, sometimes on a daily basis. Workplace violations must be dealt with in an ethical manner so as not to create an environment of employer intimidation. The outcomes of these violations are of great importance to the business owners as they must ensure the establishment of an ethical workplace to help prevent future occurrences of unfavorable types of behavior. The scenarios outlined in this paper will examine common violations and the outcomes that follow for both the employee and the employer.
In the first scenario, the employer is an international corporation with multiple plant facilities throughout …show more content…
202), this employer is not going to terminate his brother’s position. First of all, family politics weigh heavily on his decision not to terminate. Small family-owned business employers often find it difficult to maintain objectivity in their business decisions. This is especially true when addressing wages, benefits, discipline and other compliance-related issues. It is critical, however, that all employees, family and nonfamily, be treated equitably and impartially on a consistent basis if the business is to be successful and avoid potential labor-related legal issues (Pille, 2009). In addition, the owner/employer has not developed an employee handbook or formally counseled his employees on his expectations of professional behaviors. There is no paper trail that would support the termination of the employee, his brother or the other employee. If the employer attempted to terminate either position, they could have a legitimate legal case to sue for compensation or regaining employment. Although the employer has every right to expect professional behavior from his employees, in order for there to be justifiable and defensible termination of employment, it would be in the employer’s best interest to consult with a human resource and legal specialist that could assist with the development of an employee …show more content…
The employee is a ten-year veteran in a mid-level supervisory position who has tested positive on the most recent random drug and alcohol test. The employee has not attempted to deny drug or alcohol use and this is the first time the employee has failed this test. This is a violation of the organizations prohibited behavior which is outlined in a written and published substance abuse regulation (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012). The employee has, however, received counseling related to suspected drug-related behaviors on work premises. At this time, the employee will not be terminated. Following the employer’s guidelines (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012), which have been vetted by human resources and legal departments, the employee will be enrolled in a mandated drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. The employee will have this documented in her personnel file and subsequent failures to pass drug and alcohol tests will result in termination of
In the first scenario, the employer is an international corporation with multiple plant facilities throughout …show more content…
202), this employer is not going to terminate his brother’s position. First of all, family politics weigh heavily on his decision not to terminate. Small family-owned business employers often find it difficult to maintain objectivity in their business decisions. This is especially true when addressing wages, benefits, discipline and other compliance-related issues. It is critical, however, that all employees, family and nonfamily, be treated equitably and impartially on a consistent basis if the business is to be successful and avoid potential labor-related legal issues (Pille, 2009). In addition, the owner/employer has not developed an employee handbook or formally counseled his employees on his expectations of professional behaviors. There is no paper trail that would support the termination of the employee, his brother or the other employee. If the employer attempted to terminate either position, they could have a legitimate legal case to sue for compensation or regaining employment. Although the employer has every right to expect professional behavior from his employees, in order for there to be justifiable and defensible termination of employment, it would be in the employer’s best interest to consult with a human resource and legal specialist that could assist with the development of an employee …show more content…
The employee is a ten-year veteran in a mid-level supervisory position who has tested positive on the most recent random drug and alcohol test. The employee has not attempted to deny drug or alcohol use and this is the first time the employee has failed this test. This is a violation of the organizations prohibited behavior which is outlined in a written and published substance abuse regulation (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012). The employee has, however, received counseling related to suspected drug-related behaviors on work premises. At this time, the employee will not be terminated. Following the employer’s guidelines (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012), which have been vetted by human resources and legal departments, the employee will be enrolled in a mandated drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. The employee will have this documented in her personnel file and subsequent failures to pass drug and alcohol tests will result in termination of