Chapter 14: Building Positive Employee Relations 14-10
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
mistake. Maintaining that the resulting string of errors could have been avoided if the manager
had followed up on her report and stopped the initial run, the employee argued that she had been
treated unfairly because the manager had not been disciplined even though he compounded the
problem, whereas she was severely punished. Moreover, citing her “impeccable” work record
and management’s acknowledgment that she had always been a “model employee,” the
employee insisted that the denial of her previously approved promotion was “unconscionable.”
(Please do not read beyond this point until after you have answered the two questions.)
Award: The arbitrator upholds the 3-day suspension, but decides that the promotion should be
restored.
Discussion: “There is no question,” the arbitrator notes, that the employee’s negligent act “set in
motion the train of events that resulted in running two complete sets of reports reflecting
improper information.” Stressing that the employer incurred substantial cost because of the error,
the arbitrator cites “unchallenged” testimony that management had commonly issued 3-day
suspensions for similar infractions in the past. Thus, the arbitrator decides, the employer acted
with just cause in meting out an “evenhanded” punishment for the negligence. Turning to the
denial of the already approved promotion, the arbitrator says that this action should be viewed
“in the same light as a demotion for disciplinary reasons.” In such cases, the arbitrator notes,
management’s decision normally is based on a pattern of unsatisfactory behavior, an employee’s
inability to perform, or similar grounds. Observing that management had never before reversed a
promotion as part of a disciplinary action, the arbitrator says that by tacking on the denial of the
promotion in this case, the employer substantially varied its disciplinary policy from its past
practice. Because this action on management’s part was not “evenhanded,” the arbitrator rules,
the promotion should be restored.
Application Case: Enron, Ethics, and Organizational Culture
14-15: Based on what you read in this chapter, summarize in one page or less how you
would explain Enron’s ethical meltdown.
Lax oversight by the six-person audit committee was a major contributor to the collapse
of the firm. Executives carried out a series of complex financial transactions designed to
14-16: It is said that when one securities analyst tried to confront Enron’s CEO about the
firm’s unusual accounting statements, the CEO publicly used vulgar language to
describe the analyst, and that Enron employees subsequently thought doing so was
humorous. If true, what does that say about Enron’s ethical culture?
Enron promoted a culture of reckless financial deals, avarice, and deceit. A sense of