Fred, a 17-year employee with Sam's Sauna, was fired for poor job performance and poor attendance, after accruing five disciplinary penalties within a 12-month period under the company's progressive disciplinary policy. A week later, Fred told his former supervisor that he had a substance abuse problem. Although there was no employee assistance program in place and the company had not been aware of Fred's condition, their personnel director assisted Fred in obtaining treatment by allowing him to continue receiving insurance benefits and approved his unemployment insurance claim. Fred subsequently requested reinstatement, maintaining that he had been rehabilitated since his discharge and was fully capable of being a productive employee. He pointed to a letter written by his treatment counselor, which said that his prognosis for leading a "clean, sober lifestyle" was a big incentive for him. Fred pleaded for another chance, arguing that his past problems resulted from drug addiction and that Sam's Saunas should have recognized and provided treatment for the problem. Sam's Saunas countered that Fred should have notified his supervisor of his drug problem, and that everything possible had been done to help him receive treatment. Moreover, the company stressed that the employee had been fired for poor performance and absenteeism. Use of the progressive discipline policy had been necessary because the employee had committed a string of offenses over the course of a year, including careless workmanship, distracting others, wasting time, and disregarding safety rules. Questions: 1) Should Fred be reinstated? 2) Was the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment? 3) Did the personnel director behave ethically toward Fred? 4) Did he act ethically for his company? 5) Would it be fair to other employees to reinstate Fred?
Answers
Answer:
He's a bad bad boi
Explanation:
Answer:
1) This completely depends on the recruitment
if they feel that Fred is dedicated enough this time to work diligently for the company. usually recovering addicts are very much distracted by the smallest of things. so it's a huge risk for the company. I would say if Fred was being monitored for a few months and then given a chance according to their observations that would be the best possible decision made.
2) the company was more than fair in helping Fred receive his treatment if we see it from a humanitarian point of view. helping others in grave situations by corporations even when they are not performing to their level best is just more than a kind gesture by a corporation.
3) yes the personnel director was ethical in helping Fred because again from a humanitarian point of view caring for your employees is a kind gesture and counts very much in this scenario cos there was actually no assistance program in the company. It speaks much about the kindness that the personnel director offers to his employees.
4) it's kind of harsh but the sad truth is addiction is such a diesease where inspite of knowing we act and commit many actions which we know we should not. if Fred was under substance abuse and committed these acts then yes Fred did not act ethically for his company.
5) absolutely it would be fair cos not everybody has the same life and the same problems. moreover this is a case of open mindedness, depends on the way the employees see it. where either the employees would be jealous of the re joining which pretty much happens in a corporation or whether Fred had a string bond with his co- workers who want him in the best of his health before any work.