Mr. Adu, a financial Accountant with a beer manufacturing company in Ghana- Obiba J.K. Beer Co. Ltd. has falsified accounting documents to the extent of embezzling an amount GHø9,000.00 as revealed by a recent Investigating Committee’s report to the management of the company.
Management has decided to be lenient with Mr. Adu since this is the first time he has committed such an offence throughout his 25 years’ service with the company. Another factor which influenced management to be lenient with Mr. Adu was his proficiency and dynamism in the accounting profession. Ever since Mr. Adu was employed as the Financial Accountant of Obiba J.K. Co. Ltd., the finances of the Company have been put on a very sound footing. Mr. Adu’s proficiency has therefore contributed to a healthy liquidity position of the company-escalating profit margins for the past 20 years. In this regard, management has decided to demote Mr. Adu from the post of Financial Accountant to that of Assistant Cost Accountant as a punishment for the offence. The reason for the departmental transfer (from Financial to Costing) was to prevent Mr. Adu from having direct access to the finances of the Company. The options available to Mr. Adu were either to accept the departmental transfer and demotion or be summarily dismissed. He was not given the option of resignation but could resign only after one year’s service at his demoted post. Mr. Adu accordingly accepted the departmental transfer and demotion in good faith. Management’s decision in respect of Mr. Adu’s case totally contravenes the company’s Collective Agreement Section 23 Clause B (i) which clearly states that “All cases of falsification of documents whatsoever leading to embezzlement and a subsequent loss to the company are punishable by summarily dismissal.
Management’s decision on Mr. Adu’s case has generated a lot of misgivings and mixed feelings. Employees therefore consider management’s decision to be a blatant show of favouritism and a great disrespect for the provisions of the company’s Collective Agreement. The rank and file in particular, seem to be very much aggrieved on the issue. Their reason is based on the summary dismissal Of Mr. Joe Azee, a very hard working and efficient welder of the company for stealing three rods of the company’s electrodes used for welding metal plates. His dismissal was also based on the same Collective Agreement Section B (ii) which also states that “all forms of theft or stealing at the premises of the company are punishable by summary dismissal.” The company’s Workers Union is agitating that since Mr. Adu was liable to dismissal in respect of his case but he was pardoned, it stands to reason that Mr. Joe Azee should also be pardoned so far as transfer and demotion are concerned. The management of the company does not seem to see eye with the argument of the workers union since Mr. Adu was a senior management personnel and also his services have gone a long way to revamp the financial position of the company. The Workers’ Union is contemplating embarking upon a sit-down strike action to back their demand for the reinstatement of Mr. Joe Azee. The contemplated sit-down strike action is likely to affect the production target of the company adversely.
Question:
Define employee discipline
Identify principles of due process which must be followed with regard to employee discipline
Was due discipline followed with regard to the case?
What is progressive discipline?
Identify the steps in administering progressive discipline
What guidelines should be followed in the dismissal meeting?
Was management fair in handling the case?
What in your opinion is industry best practice for handling an issue of this nature
Do you support the workers union?
Discuss the impact of this case on Mr Adu, Mr. Azee and the rest of the workforce
Answer= Employee discipline can be stated as the different types of actions that are imposed by the employers or the organizations on the manpower if they are not able to adhere to the rules, policies, or standards of the organization.
Answer= The principle of progressing discipline can be used. In which the history of the indiscipline is maintained by the employer each time the employees fail to adhere to the guidelines and policies of the firm. Depending on this history, the severity of the action depends.
Answe= No, as the given case indicates that there was a touch of favorites for the accused employee, thus the due discipline was not used.
Answer = Progressive discipline can be defined as the process in which the company takes the increasingly intense actions or steps if an employee fails to rectify the given problem or issue despite having received enough chances to rectify that problem
P.S. As per HOMEWORKLIB POLICY, only the first 4 parts can be answered.
Mr. Adu, a financial Accountant with a beer manufacturing company in Ghana- Obiba J.K. Beer Co....