Scribd
Upload
48 views

Case Problem 1

Jim White punched out both his time card and Pete Boyton's time card, violating company policy that each employee must punch their own card. Both employees were immediately discharged by the personnel director. Pete and Jim claimed Pete's card was punched by accident as he was in a rush to get home to his ill wife. The personnel director was inclined to believe their story but did not reverse the dismissal due to the strict enforcement of company rules. Later, it was reported that the department where Pete and Jim worked was unable to meet production schedules due to being short-staffed after their dismissal, risking the loss of an important customer. The personnel and sales directors argued the dismissal of the two valuable employees could have been avoided by considering

Uploaded by

Mounicha Ambayec
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views

Case Problem 1

Jim White punched out both his time card and Pete Boyton's time card, violating company policy that each employee must punch their own card. Both employees were immediately discharged by the personnel director. Pete and Jim claimed Pete's card was punched by accident as he was in a rush to get home to his ill wife. The personnel director was inclined to believe their story but did not reverse the dismissal due to the strict enforcement of company rules. Later, it was reported that the department where Pete and Jim worked was unable to meet production schedules due to being short-staffed after their dismissal, risking the loss of an important customer. The personnel and sales directors argued the dismissal of the two valuable employees could have been avoided by considering

Uploaded by

Mounicha Ambayec
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE PROBLEM 1

Golden Eagle is a manufacturing plant under the direction of a plant manager who is
known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman noticed Jim White, one of the
workers, at the time clock punching out two cards -his own and the card of Pete
Boyton, a fellow worker. Since it was the rule of the company that each person must
punch out his or her own card, the foreman asked Jim to accompany him to the
personnel director. The personnel director interpreted the incident as a direct violation
of a rule and gave immediate discharge of both workers.

The two workers came to see the personnel director on the following day. Pete claimed
innocence on the ground that he had not asked that his card be punched and did not
know at the time it was being punched. He had been offered a ride by a friend who had
already punched-out and who could not wait for him to go through the punch-out
procedure. Pete was worried about his wife, who was ill at home and was anxious to
reach home as quickly as possible. He planned to take his card to the foreman the next
morning for reinstatement, a provision sometimes exercised in such cases.

These circumstances were verified by Jim. He claimed that he had punched Pete’s card
the same time he punched his own, not being conscious of any wrongdoing.

The personnel director was inclined to believe the story of the two men but did not feel
he could reverse the action taken. He recognized that these men were good workers
and had good records prior to the incident. Nevertheless, they had violated a rule for
which the penalty is immediate discharge. He also reminded them that it was the policy
of the company to enforce the rules without exception.

A few days later, the personnel director, plant manager and sales manager sat together
at lunch. The sales manager reported that he was faced with the necessity of notifying
one of their best customer’s that his order must be delayed because of the inability of
one department to conform to schedule. The department in question was the one from
which the two workers had been discharged. Not only had it been impossible to replace
these men to date, but disgruntlement over the incident had led to significant decline in
the cooperation of other workers.

The personnel director and sales manager took the position that the discharge of these
two valuable men could have been avoided if there had been a provision for considering
the circumstances of the case. They pointed out that the incident was costly to the
company in the possible loss of a customer, in the dissatisfaction within the employee
group, and in the time and money that would be involved in recruiting and training
replacements.

The plant manager could not agree with this point of view. “We must have rules if we
are to have efficiency, and the riles are no good unless we enforce them. Furthermore,
if we start considering all these variations in circumstances, we will find ourselves
loaded down with everybody thinking that he is an exception.” He admitted that the
grievances were frequent but countered with the point that they could be of little
consequences if the contract agreed to by the union was followed to the letter.

You might also like