Introduction
Employees form a very important component of an organization, and their output directly reflects the overall performance of an organization. A team of employees who are dedicated to their work will always help a firm achieve its vision within a reasonable duration. However, sometimes employees may fail to act as per the expectations of the company. According to McGregor’s Theory X, employees are generally lazy individuals who need close supervision in order to work within the expectations of the employer (Kerley, 2002). This is the case that is currently taking place at this mid-sized company that is preparing for an Initial Public Offering. As the newly hired Chief Operating Officer, I have discovered serious personnel problems that must have existed because of lack of close supervision and common rules to be followed by the employees. I believe that the employees at different ranks have been left to operate in a wild environment where they can do what they want without following the common organizational policies that should be present within any firm. Other employees have also developed a feeling that they can do what they want without being reprimanded. This habit has to change if this organization is to achieve success during and after its Initial Public Offering. As the Chief Operating Officer, I plan to use the doctrine of employment at will to bring discipline and responsible behavior back to this organization.
Bill’s Case
Bill has been using the company-issued properties to run his personal businesses. It was confirmed that he has been using the company’s Blackberry to run his personal businesses. This has continued for a while because he has a feeling that the authorities may have not realized, or are not concerned with his actions. Bill will be fired with immediate effect once the investigations about him are complete. People may protest the dismissal, but the fact is that the loyalty of Bill is no longer with this company. His loyalty has shifted to his own business, and no matter what favor this firm can extend to him, we cannot win that loyalty again. He must leave this company in order to set a precedent for others who may wish to divide their loyalty while working at this firm (Cihon, & Castagnera, 2011). He has committed two major offences that cannot make him win a case if he may decide to sue the company. First, this company has been paying him handsomely to deliver services to it, but instead, his services are going to his personal business. He has also been using properties exclusively meant for the business to run his own firm. These two acts are equivalent to stealing from the company.
Joe’s Case
Joe’s case is a typical scenario where an employee is using his position to act against the employer. Joe has no chances of winning a case against the company. During the working hours, Joe is not permitted to use his personal e-mails for whatsoever reasons, unless it is during the off sessions. During the off sessions, Joe is not expected to act on behalf of the company, unless he has been given the express authority to do so by the employer. Using his personal e-mail to communicate to the customers of the firm is a direct breach of trust with the company (Twomey, 2010). He is expected to use the systems offered by the company, and not his personal contacts. Criticizing the customer through his personal e-mail is a clear indication that he was aware that he was acting in bad taste against the firm, which is going against the company rules. It gives this company an express authority to take him to a court of law for breaching the contract and acting in bad faith against this firm.
Finally, Joe will be informed that this firm has a liberty to check all the messages, including mails that come from the systems within this organization. This is done for security purposes. It is meant to ensure that people do not send or receive information that may breach the firm’s security or the security of the country. It is the responsibility that this company has to the government. In fulfilling this responsibility, we realized that Joe has been acting in bad faith against the firm. We were not interested in breaching his rights to privacy. If he had used his personal computers, we could have never realized that he has been acting against the company. With this threat, Joe will be sent to the back office as a demotion where he will not be expected to interact with any customer. If he goes ahead with the threat, this company will sue him for the damages and defend itself that it was meeting its responsibility to the government and to itself by inspecting all the communication from its system. Joe will subsequently be dismissed after the case.
Anna’s Case
Anna’s case will be treated with a lot of attention in order to ensure that both the boss and Ann herself will feel that justice shall have been done. I will summon both of them to my office. Ann did the right thing by going to the boss and requesting for a leave because of the jury duty that was before her. Refusing to attend to this duty may be considered contempt to the court, which might have led to her arrest. The boss should have been considerate enough and granted her even half a day off duty. Given the fact that she was not granted the leave, she was forced to attend the court session without the leave because she had to attend. It is unfair to dismiss her. As the Chief Operating Officer, I will instruct the boss to change the decision of firing Ann because she had no alternative but to attend to the jury duty. I will also instruct the relevant authority within the firm to transfer Ann to another department to avoid confrontation between her and her boss.
Conclusion
In order to bring sanity at this firm, some drastic measures must be taken in order to address the current problems that are affecting this firm. New policies must be introduced to inform the workers that they have a responsibility to this firm. They must be made to realize that it is an offence to use the company assets for private businesses. Similarly, it is also an offence to use private assets to conduct the company’s businesses, unless it is done with permission. The employees must also be informed that the firm has the liberty of evoking the doctrine of employment at will, especially to errant employees whose actions may affect the positive performance of the firm.
References
Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. (2011). Employment & labor law. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kerley, P. N. (2002). Employment law for the paralegal. Albany, NY: West/Thomson Learning.
Twomey, D. P. (2010). Labor & employment law: Text & cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.