CASE: CHARTING A COURSE FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION: “IT’S A POLICY” The setting is

Question

CASE: CHARTING A COURSE FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION:
“IT’S A POLICY”
The setting is an 82-bed hospital located in a small city. One day an employee of the
maintenance department asked the supervisor, George Mann, for an hour or two off to take care
of some personal business. Mann agreed, and asked the employee to stop at the garden
equipment dealership and buy several small lawn-mower parts that the department required.
While transacting business at a local bank, the employee was seen by Sally Carter, the supervisor
of both human resources and payroll, who was in the bank on hospital business. Carter asked the
employee what he was doing there and was told the visit was personal.
Upon returning to the hospital, Sally Carter examined the employee’s time card. The
employee had not punched out to indicate when he had left the hospital. Carter noted the time the
employee returned, and after the normal working day she marked the card to indicate an absence
of two hours on personal business. Carter advised the chief executive officer (CEO), Jane
Arnold, of what she had done, citing a long-standing policy (in their dusty, and some would say
infrequently used, policy manual) requiring an employee to punch out when leaving the premises
on personal business. The CEO agreed with Sally Carter’s action.
Carter advised Mann of the action and stated that the employee would not be paid for the
two hours he was gone. Mann was angry. He said he had told the employee not to punch out
because he had asked him to pick up some parts on his trip; however, Mann conceded that the
employee’s personal business was probably the greater part of the trip. Carter replied that Mann
had no business doing what he had done and that it was his—Mann’s—poor management that
had caused the employee to suffer.
Mann appealed to the CEO to reopen the matter based on his claim that there was an
important side to the story that she had not yet heard. Jane Arnold agreed to hear both managers
state their position.

Instructions:

1. In either paragraph form or as a list of points, develop the argument you would be advancing if you were in Georges Mann's position.

2. In similar fashion, throughly develop the argument you would advance if you were in Sally Carter's position.

3. Asuming the position of the CEO, Jane Arnold, render a decision.

Document you decision in whatever detail may be necessary, complete with explanation of why you decided in this fasion.

4. Based on your responses to Questions 1-3, outline wahatevere steps-policy changes, guidelines, payroll requirements, or something else- you believe should be considered to minimize the chances of similar conflict in the future.

Explanation / Answer

1- If I were in Georges mann's positioni would develop the argument in the same way as George has done . I would say to CEO that "this was exactly not his personal trip,thogh the employee has asked me to take off for two hours but i found that our premises need some instruments which are of use and we do'nt have them, so i asked him to go out and buy those instruments for the premises.

and i had asked him not to punch out the card as i did'nt consider it a personal off. she worked for the premises in these two hours as she gave her service to us so ideally she should be paid out fo these two hours".

2- If I were in place of Sally carter'sn position i would also react in the same way because sally is right in his place, as he was in the bank and found the employee after being asked the answer was that " it was a personal visit" by the employee. the employee him,self considered it an off.

now assuming the position of CEO, the decision which i would be taking in place of CEO would be somewhat like, firstly i would listen all the parties involved and would analyse that this is true that the employee had informed and aske the supervisor for a visi9t, but it was fine that the supervisor asked him nto take some material for the premises , so it can not be considered a personal visit though it was to be. and for the view of sally, he was also right in his placeas the employee did not tell him the truth exactly,.

so i would sort out the matter by discussion and with organising a meeting of each one envolved.

4- also i would make the decision that if somebody wants off for personal visit wether its for one or two our, so he or she wouldbhave to take the approval from HR, and that would be a simple process that the person has to wirte his signature and reason for visiting and the time. by doing this the HR would be well informed. and this kind of conflict might not be in future.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.