978-0538468077 Chapter 5 Solution Manual Part 1

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL

APPLICATIONS IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 7E

1PART 5

Enhancing Employee Rela!ons: Mo!va!on, Employee Rights and Discipline,

Labor Rela!ons, and Collec!ve Bargaining

Motivation and Discipline

88. CASE: THE DRUG TESTING PROBLEM AT STANDARD CHEMICAL

I. OVERVIEW

This case focuses on the termina%on of an employee for alleged viola%on of the company’s drug

and alcohol policy. The case also focuses on the issue of probable cause, employee privacy rights, and

the proper administration of a drug and alcohol tes%ng policy.

II. OBJECTIVES

1. To demonstrate the di1cul%es associated with implementation of a drug and alcohol

policy.

2. To familiarize students with the issue of employee privacy rights as related to drug

tes%ng in the workplace.

3. To underscore the importance of clarity in communicating and implementing drug

and alcohol policy procedures

4. To familiarize students with the issue of “probably cause” in tes%ng employees for

drug use.

III. DISCUSSION

To invoke a drug and alcohol policy and require an employee to submit to drug tes%ng, there

must be “probable cause” to suspect that the employee is using drugs. In this case, the issue of probable

cause is rather straigh:orward. The nature of the accident and the fact that the accident was reported

by the security guard and not by the forkli; driver are suffcient to suspect that Peter Carpenter was

using drugs. His suspension under the company’s drug policy is also jus%=able since there is probable

cause to suspect on the job drug use.

The case becomes more complicated because of >aws in the company’s implementation of the

policy procedures. Mr. Carpenter was given three option based on probable cause of drug usage: (1)

refuse drug tes%ng and be terminated immediately (2) take a drug test with consequences dependent on

the results or (3) enroll in the company’s EAP program in lieu of drug tes%ng. The company is on solid

ground if an employee chooses op%on (1) or (2). However, the company runs into signiticant problems

when an employee chooses to enroll directly in the EAP program. From the company’s perspec%ve,

choosing op%on (3) is tantamount to admiBng drug use. It is not necessarily unreasonable to infer that

choosing enrollment in the EAP program is an implied admission, Standard Chemical does not

communicate to employees that choosing that op%on is an admission of drug usage.

The company does not state that the expectation for continued employment under the EQP

op%on is a decrease in the presence of controlled substances as measured by drug tes%ng. Standard

Chemical’s drug policy and EQP guidelines emphasis job performance and safety as the jus%=ca%on for

drug related termina%on of employees. Although it is reasonable to infer that a decrease and eventual

elimina%on of drug usage is a reasonable expectation for treatment, the company focuses on

impairment of job performance and safety as the benchmarks in implementing the drug policy. Mr.

Carpenter aEended all counseling sessions and his job performance and safety record were perfect

during his participation in the EQP program. Because he was not informed that his drug levels were to

drop and because the drug policy stressed job performance and safety as the problems that would result

in termina%on, the company was not jus%=ed in =ring Mr. Carpenter.

The situation was further complicated by the fact that the counselor released the results of Mr.

Carpenter’s drug tests to the company nurse. Mr. Carpenter had not consented to have the results of his

drug tests released to the company. The counselor breached client confidentiality and therefore his

termina%on was based on information the company should not have had access to. Mr. Carpenter’s

privacy rights as an employee were violated. A secondary but potentially widespread problem in not

protecting employee privacy rights related to the employees’ concerns that the EAP program would be

used by management to get rid of people they don’t like. The company’s mishandling of Mr. Carpenter’s

case could seriously jeopardize the credibility of the EQP and could hinder cooperation with the

company’s drug and alcohol policy.

NOTE: Although the case does not focus specifically on issues related to reliability of drug tests,

the instructor may want to augment the case with a discussion of types of drug tests, problems

associated with accuracy and reliability of laboratory drug tests and the eFect of prescrip%on,

over-the-counter medica%on and diet on the results of drug tests.

NOTE: Although names have been disguised and the situation altered in ways to protect the

individuals and company involved, the case is based on an actual labor arbitration case. The arbitrator

ruled that although the suspension was appropriate given the evidence for probable cause for drug use.

The termina%on was ruled as unjus%=ed based on the above >aws in administration of the policy and

the breach of employee privacy rights. The arbitrator recommended that Mr. Carpenter be allowed to

reenroll in the EAP program with reinstatement of employment condi%onal on successful participation in

the program and nega%ve drug test results at 30 and 60 days. Mr. Carpenter was also put on formal

notice that future viola%ons of the drug and alcohol policy would result in termina%on.

IV. ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS

1. Was Mr. Carpenter’s suspension jus%=ed?

Yes. When Mr. Carpenter parked the forkli;, he hit the wall with enough force to buckle the

steel wall. Other employees had seen him driving the forkli; recklessly. He did not report the accident

2. Was Mr. Carpenter’s termina%on jus%=ed?

No. Although there was enough evidence to indicate reasonable suspicion of drug use and

therefore suspend Mr. Carpenter under the drug and alcohol policy, termina%on of his employment was

not jus%=ed. The administration of the policy in Mr. Carpenter’s case was >awed in several signiticant

ways. Of particular signiticance is the fact that the policy stressed job performance and safety as reasons

for termina%on under the policy. Mr. Carpenter’s record following the referral to the EQP program was

3. Evaluate the adequacy of the company’s drug and alcohol abuse policy. Are there

any components that need improvement?

The company’s commitment to eliminating drug and alcohol related job performance and safety

viola%ons is sensible, particularly because of the potential hazards which exist in working with vola%le

The company needs to separate drug tes%ng from participation in the EQP program. option #3

should oFer rehabilita%on through the EQP but also require periodic drug tests to be released to the

4. Were Mr. Carpenter’s privacy rights protected?

No. Mr. Carpenter agreed in writing to release of information regarding his participation in the

EQP program but did not give permission for the counselor to release the results of his drug tests. The

EAP counselor informed the Human Resource Manager that Mr. Carpenter had not given permission to

This teaching note was prepared by Dr. Susan Corriher.

89. Case: Violence at Work

I. OVERVIEW

This case focuses on a situation at a state university in which a student has threatened a

Professor. The Professor has not been physically harmed but he has been psychologically. Other faculty

are also frightened. The question is what should the university do with regard to both the oFender and

the faculty member.

This case presents at least two diFering views regarding the appropriate disciplinary action to be

taken against the threatening student. Professor Morris wants the student, Paul Lewis, removed from

the university and never wants to see him again. Other faculty agree with him. However, the Dean of

Student AFairs has decided that Lewis should only be removed from Professor Morris’s class this

semester. Students will undoubtedly debate this case and side with either the Dean or the Professor. An

important point that could be made here is that the diFerent views probably result from the diFerent

perspectives each person has.

In making his decision, the Dean is looking at the issue to determine what is in the best interests

of the university. He may be concerned with consistency of punishment, and legal and possible lost

revenue issues. On the other hand, Professor Morris is probably not concerned with consistency of

punishment, or legal suits, or lost revenue. He just doesn’t want to see Lewis again and believes that the

only way that is going to happen is for Lewis to be removed permanently from the university. His

personal fear and anger is driving his conclusion.

When one thinks about violence in the workplace, they often think about physical violence since

this is the type that makes all of the newspaper and TV headlines. Yet, threats of violence and

in%mida%on, as occurred in this case, are probably far more common in industry.

II. OBJECTIVES:

1. To make students aware that violence or threats of violence are not rare events at

companies and are increasing in frequency.

2. To make students aware of various criteria that are often used to determine

appropriate disciplinary action.

3. To make students aware of some actions organiza%ons can take to reduce the

chance for violence and create a safe work place.

4. To make students aware of some actions individual employees can take to lessen the

likelihood they will be the victim of violence at work.

III. ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS

1. What action do you believe Eastern State University should have taken with regard to Paul

Lewis? Do you agree with the dean’s solution to the problem? Why or why not?

Given the information presented in the case, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what

disciplinary action the university should have taken in this case. In any disciplinary case, one needs to

examine many facts that are not provided in this case. First and foremost is what disciplinary action the

university has taken regarding students in similar cases. The discipline given in this case should be

consistent with these prior cases. The case doesn’t provide this information. In addition, disciplinary

decisions are typically based on the severity of the oFense, the student’s academic performance, prior

The one fact that seems clear in this case is that the Dean has determined that Lewis should be

2. If you were Professor Morris, what preven%ve action would you take to insure your safety and

prevent Lewis from harming you?

It is not totally clear what actions Professor Morris should take to insure his safety. Obviously, it

would be best to avoid coming into contact with Lewis until at least the end of the semester, just a few

weeks away. But, this is easier said than done. He may want to minimize the %me he spends on campus,

keep his o1ce door closed when he is there, and minimize the %me it takes to walk to his classes and car.

3. What steps should the university take to insure the safety of faculty?

If threats against the faculty are becoming frequent occurrences, the university probably needs

to reevaluate its student disciplinary policy regarding such behavior. In making this evaluation, the

The university may also want to reevaluate whether it has suffcient security personnel on

A third approach the university could take is to conduct broad based training that focuses on all

aspects of potential violence on campus and what faculty should do in these situations. How faculty can

Fourth, the university may want to provide faculty with a quicker way to contact security or

alternative to doing so. Faculty are not always in a position to call security quickly. They may not have a

Finally, the university may want to tell Prof. Morris to save any threatening E-mails or voice-mail

messages he might receive. They could suggest that he move his o1ce to a more protected area. They

90. CASE: SURFING THE INTERNET ON COMPANY TIME

I. OVERVIEW

This case describes an incident in which a supervisor catches an employee accessing

pornographic Web sites via the company’s computer. When he is confronted, the employee argues that

the supervisor and the company have violated his right to privacy. The human resource manager

suspends the employee for “using the company’s computer for non-produc%ve personal reasons.” With

greater use of desktop computers with Internet access in the workplace, the issues of personal use and

privacy rights have become major concerns for organization throughout the world. Employee Web-use

and e-mail management were unheard of human resource issues ten years ago. A recent survey of

Fortune 500 companies revealed that the number one problem with computers in the workplace is lost

%me. According to the survey, employees are spending an inordinate amount of %me playing games,

sur=ng the Internet, and using the e-mail to converse with friends and family members.

II. OBJECTIVES

The case has two major objective:

1. To explore the issue of employee Web-use and e-mail management.

2. To understand employee privacy rights as they relate to e-mail and Web-use.

III. DISCUSSION

Students should indicate that Dale Gibbons faces two major issues in the case. First, he must be

able to defend his actions if James Erksine were to follow through on his threat to sue Standard

Insurance for viola%on of his right to privacy. Second, he must develop a policy for Web and e-mail usage

in the company. The present system of “trus%ng” employees is evidently not adequate. additionally,

given the company’s greater reliance on computer technology and electronic communications with

clients such a policy is warranted.

In reference to the first issue, Dale Gibbons may have a problem because the company has no

wriEen policy prohibi%ng the personal use of the Web. If Erksine is correct that other employees use the

Web for personal reasons, then it raises the issue of consistent application of discipline for similar

viola%ons. It seems that the supervisor did not regularly check employee personal usage of the Web.

Erksine’s actions were only discovered by accident when another employee used his computer.

Inconsistent application of discipline begs li%ga%on alleging discrimination. Thus, in light of how

discipline should be managed, Gibbons could have a difficult %me defending his actions. In their

analysis, students should indicate the elements of a fair discipline system and evaluate whether or not

Gibbons followed proper procedure.

But beyond the issue of the proper administration of the discipline, students must grapple with

the issue of privacy. It is a complex issue. Electronic communications are company property. The use of

passwords and log-in codes may give employees the impression that e-mail and Internet

communications are private and con=den%al. A critical question then is an employer’s right to review

e-mail, voicemail and Internet exchanges. The answer to this question has been the discussion of many

article and court cases. In general, employers have the right to monitor and restrict employee use of

electronic communications because the communications are part of the company’s property.

A survey of workplace monitoring and surveillance in 2001 conducted by the American

Management association found that three-quarters of major U. S. firm (77.7 percent) record and review

employee communications and ac%vi%es on the job, including their phone calls, e-mails, Internet

connection, and computer =les. Electronic surveillance for the purpose of improving job performance,

quality, and productivity, is generally regarded as non-invasion of privacy by the courts. Employee

computer screens may be viewed or messages may be printed from the E-mail system, a user’s hard

drive, or backup storage without either the employee’s knowledge or consent.

There are a few court cases that are relevant to the present case. In Shoars v. Epson America, Inc.

an e-mail administrator claimed the invasion of privacy and wrongful termina%on violated California law

because of Epson’s routine practice of intercep%ng and printing employees’ e-mail. Epson’s right to

manage their e-mail system was upheld by California courts. In a 1993 case, Bourke vs. Nissan Motor

Corp., two software specialists contended that they were forced to quit a;er a supervisor read their

personal E-mail correspondence, which contained sexual statements. They claimed invasion of privacy in

their lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California upheld Nissan Motor’s right to

monitor e-mail. It held that the company did not violate the plain%Fs’ privacy in viola%on of the

constitutional Right to Privacy because the plain%Fs had a policy that restricted e-mail usage to company

business. In their judgment, the judges stated that the issue centered on whether the plain%Fs had a

personal and objec%vely reasonable expectation of privacy. If employees have a reasonable expectation

of privacy, then the employer may not invade that privacy without incurring possible liability. The key,

however, just like in the areas of post-oFer, pre-employment physicals, drug tes%ng and searches of

employee lockers, is to control what employees’ expectations of what cons%tutes “privacy.”

IV. ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS

1. Did Helen’s actions invade James’ right to privacy?

The answer to this question for reasons cited above is not straigh:orward. It will largely depend

on whether Erskine had a reasonable right to expect privacy in Internet communications. The absence of

a wriEen company policy may lead the courts to state that the company had indeed violated his privacy

rights. On the other hand, it is clear that desktop computers were provided to employees for business

purposes. Another complica%ng factor is Erskine’s viewing of pornographic material. One of the most

serious forms of Web-access abuse involves the downloading and display of pornography. There are

Courts have addressed whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail

messages. It is more difficult to =nd cases involving Internet sur=ng. However, it is assumed that the

same type of analysis applies to Internet sur=ng. In deciding the cases, the courts evaluate the

following: (1) whether the employer had a policy against using e-mail for personal messages; (2) whether

the company ever disclosed to employees that e-mail messages are regularly stored and accessed by the

2. Was the company jus%=ed in suspending James?

Given that the company did not have a wriEen policy in place, it may have been beEer to give Erskine a

wriEen reprimand. By suspending James the company may have exposed itself to li%ga%on. Clearly

there is no wriEen policy in place. Again, they may be jus%=ed in arguing that James’ behavior exposed

3. What should be the key contents of an employee computer and Web-use policy?

Explain

Clearly Gibbons must formulate a comprehensive Web and e-mail acceptable use policy (AUP).

Employee Web-use and e-mail use is a people issue and human resources must take the lead in

Make clear that electronic communications are company property (e.g. e-mail system,

voicemail, and Internet gateway).

Indicate that electronic media should be used for business purposes only.

Tell employees that electronic messages are subject to review by company management

at the management’s discre%on.

Once the policy is developed, all supervisors should have a Web-use and e-mail use training

program. Given the company’s heavy reliance on computers for servicing its clients, it is advisable to

have periodic audits of employee computers, to search for, among other things, adult web sites by users.

This is a good way to avoid the problem of inconsistency due to inadvertently discovering viola%ons. But