The ideal human resource manager balances between being a champion for the employer and the employee contemporaneously while still adhering to the law and ethical provisions. In some cases, the interests of the employer collide with those of the employee with the law and ethical standards caught in between (Horne, Williamson & Herman, 2017). In the instant case study, there is the secondary concern that the individual interests of the owner of the company as a man are interfering with the professional interest of the organization which can create adverse legal ramifications. At the same time, the HR manager has been given instructions by the owner of the company and disobeying the instructions could amount to insubordination. Further, accusations of theft have been made which creates an obligation for the HR manager to investigate. The solution to the instant management impasse will require a combination of an understanding of the law and critical thinking.
The manager has made two requests, both of which raise several legal and ethical issues based on the nature of the case and the existing peculiar circumstances. The peculiarity in this instance involves the knowledge that Bill, the boss, and Paige, his assistant are having a potentially romantic relationship. This peculiarity must be factored consistently when analyzing the legal and ethical issues involved in the case. The first request relates to the taking of a polygraph test for Paige to assess whether she has stolen any money from the company. Inder the provision of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA), compelling an employee to take a polygraph is prohibited except in the circumstances specifically provided for in the act. Among the circumstances where a polygraph is allowed is when there has been an incidence such as theft in the office and an employee is suspected of the same. The legal provision above creates a scenario where the HR manager has a discretion on whether or not Paige should take a polygraph test (Horne, Williamson & Herman, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The discretion creates the ethical issue of whether or not it is right to have Paige take a polygraph under the circumstances. First, there has been no known incidence of theft in the company as Bill has only expressed a suspicion. Bill’s suspicion might be tainted by the fact that Paige might be a romantic interest of Bill. It is the onus of the HR manager to determine if the suspicion of Bill amounts to an actual probable cause that a crime of theft has been committed and that Paige is a person of interest in that specific crime. Based on the circumstances of the case, there is no clear probable cause, either from a legal perspective or from an ethical perspective unless Bill provides more particulars. The second request relates to electronic surveillance. The HR manager is supposed to access Paige’s emails within and without the office and also befriending Paige on Facebook. The Facebook friendship is done with the specific intent of snooping around her Facebook page and investigating Paige based on the suspicion that she could have stolen from the company. Email surveillance against Paige raises both legal and ethical issues. As the HR manager, the law and available precedent provide an avenue for accessing the Emails that Paige sends specifically on the office email system. However, the emails that Paige sends using her private email handle are private even when the same are sent using the office network (Li et al., 2014). From an ethical perspective, the HR manager has to consider whether there is a probable cause to interfere with Paige’s privacy by accessing her emails. It is only if the HR manager honestly believes that Paige has been stealing from the company that email surveillance can be ethical. Finally, the law is definitive that social media usage of an employee is independent of the employee-employer relationship. Any attempt to snoop around Paige’s Facebook page is not only illegal on the basis of labor laws but also unethical and a reflection of poor labor relations (Li et al., 2014).
The poor labor relations practices manifested by Bill, considering his position in the company would not auger well with Paige if she got wind of them, yet she was not only innocent of the charge of theft but also not interested in a romantic affair with Bill. The specific working relationship between Paige and Bill makes the suspicions that Bill has against Paige, and also the way that Bill has handled those suspicions fall under the constructive-discharge doctrine (Strauss, 2015). Under international labor laws which are operationalized in the US vide the National Labor Relations Act, constructive discharge happens an employer creates such a hostile working environment that the employee cannot manage to remain at the place or work. Constructive discharge can also be said to have happened when the employer by an act or omission either actively or passively makes it impossible for an employee to perform effectively (Strauss, 2015). In the instant case, Paige is an assistant to Bill which means that all her duties in the office entail either doing what Bill asks or doing what she believes Bill needs. The paramount foundation of the professional relationship between Bill and Paige is trust. By his acts and omissions, Bill has effectively communicated that he does not trust Paige. For a start, Bill has developed the belief that Paige has stolen from the company, which is a major accusation as it also amounts to a crime. Secondly, although Bill is in constant communication with Paige, he never raised his suspicions with her but rather communicated his suspicion to the HR manager while also demanding that the HR manager acts on those suspicions. It is impossible for Paige to be able to perform as an assistant to a boss who she has reasonable grounds to believe does not trust her hence this amounts to constructive discharge.
It is impossible for Paige to continue working under the current circumstances yet she should also not suffer lack of money because of the unethical behavior of her boss. Two primary options are available to Paige under the circumstances. The first would be to stop working forthwith and commence a labor dispute against the company for constructive discharge (Strauss, 2015). As part of the suit, Paige can also include a claim for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and breach of privacy. The basis for the gender discrimination case lies in the fact that all the charges brought against Paige by Bill were predicated on the fact that Bill had a romantic interest in Paige. The sexual harassment aspect of the claim lies in the fact that had Paige not been a woman, Bill would not have had a romantic interest in her and the crisis would never have arisen. Finally, the breach of privacy charge relates to the investigation where her email was surveilled and her social media pages perused.
The second option for Paige would be to use the path of arbitration and have herself transferred to another department in the company. The basis for this second option lies in the fact that it will be faster than the legal suit, it has a higher chance of success, it will provide an element of continuity for Paige, and finally, she will still have a job. Paige can use the stick and carrot approach in the arbitration process. She should find a means of informing Bill that she has considered the suit described above and also its potential ramifications to the company. Paige should then inform Bill, preferably through the HR manager that if an amicable consensus is arrived at, she is willing to waive her right to institute a suit against the company. Under this arrangement, Paige would be transferred to another department where she does not have to work directly under Bill. She will have saved her job, be able to continue earning and also avoid the vagaries of judicial proceedings.
References
Horne, M. S., Williamson Jr, T. S., & Herman, A. (2017). The contingent workforce: Business and legal strategies . New York, NY: Law Journal Press
Li, H., Sarathy, R., Zhang, J., & Luo, X. (2014). Exploring the effects of organizational justice, personal ethics and sanction on internet use policy compliance. Information Systems Journal , 24 (6), 479-502
Strauss, M. (2015). Too early or too late: US Supreme Court should rule constructive discharge claims accrue upon resignation. BCL Rev. , 56 , 1613-1646
