 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Appeals
Six months have passed since you overhauled the disciplinary system. The new Marketing
and Sales director, G Malcolm, was busy with the development of the new German
subsidiary which was already growing rapidly. To assist this growth you have recently
visited Russia to investigate the possibility of selling the new valve systems to the
expanding natural gas industry. The new disciplinary system appeared to be working well
as there had been a considerable reduction in the number of staff involved in such actions.
However you are concerned that in certain departments, discipline is still being exercised
arbitrarily and is not subject to sufficient independent control. This concern had been
strengthened by the fact that the company had become involved in a number of
employment tribunal actions, both in the UK and Germany, two of which had meant that
the company had spent large sums of money in settlements. This suggested that the
appeals procedure used by Burke needed to be improved.
Currently it consisted of the involvement of the line manager, followed by the relevant
director, with the matter finally passing to you as managing director. You had found it
difficult to go against the decision of the relevant department heads as this would be taken
as a lack of confidence in their judgement. As a result you have tended to support the
decisions that directors have taken even though some of them have been in your view
questionable. Another worry concerned those employees that complained about particular
aspects of company activity.
Employees were given the responsibility in their job descriptions of bringing to the notice of
their line managers procedures that were either unsafe, contravened national legislation,
or company rules. Of the 3 employees in the Production Department who had exercised
this right all had subsequently been subject to disciplinary procedures and eventual
dismissal, though the disciplinary offence had not related to their complaints. None of
these employees had appealed against the decision, but the coincidence of complaints
about company procedure leading to dismissal on other grounds is of obvious concern to
you. What might be a further example of this had come to your attention on your return
from Eastern Europe.
It appeared that one of the employees in the Production Department, T Jefferson, was now
facing dismissal for misconduct. The employee had appealed against the decision,
claiming that it was unfair and also that the action had only been taken because of his
comments on the lack of safe working practices. The union representative supported the
appeal, and has also made a complaint about the poor safety record in the foundry. The
representative has also commented on the fact that you as managing director have
persistently refused to invest in the necessary handling equipment to make the area safe,
even though the company could well afford such a sum. Another issue raised at the same
time by the union representatives was the failure of Burke Engineering to act in a
consistent fashion on a number of regional initiatives on the employment of the disabled
and minority groups.
You feel that something must be done to make sure that the company continues to take
note of such employment issues. You have collected the various documents that appear to
be relevant to the case and are considering how this and future appeals should be
organised. It would, in your opinion, be ideal if safety issues and company adherence to
employment legislation could be included as part of this review.
 |