Scenario 1
Sergeant Officer Stevens, the sergeant on the evening shift, reported to you (the shift lieutenant) that after roll call he heard two male officers telling sexually explicit jokes in the hallway. As the sergeant exited the roll call room, he noticed one of the female dispatchers standing within a few feet of the two officers. The sergeant chose to ignore the immediate situation and just made a report to you.
Labor relations exist to safeguard the relationship between employer and employees. Commonly, these relations shape the dynamic between management and employees as both are involved the daily operations of an organization(Cihon & Castagnera, 2013).The collective bargaining agreement informslabor relations between the employer and union staff. Generally, such an agreement outlines the roles and responsibilities of both the employer and employee. In the operational context, management represents the employer and has several concise yet powerful rights. For instance, management has the right to hire and direct employees;promote and retain employees; effect a disciplinary action against employees; reassign employees; schedule work and determine the methods, means and personnel by which the organization conducts operations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, to be effective management requires an understanding of employee rights, which facilitates the creation of an environment conducive to the attainment of business objectives both on a personal and collective level. Generally, enforcing standards entails making a clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Guerin, 2004). Thus, management is responsible for objectively setting the desirable behavior within the context of relevant labor laws. Such responsibility requires that managers observe behavior above the set standard, to encourage compliance from those working under them.
The consequences for non- compliance with the organizational expectations about either behavior or performance attracts some disciplinary action. Ideally, discipline is corrective as it allows performance improvement by highlighting areas of improvement. Moreover, the documentation of disciplinary proceedings for example through supervisory files offers management credibility.
There are several grounds for disciplinary action. Specifically, misconduct entails the display of behaviors the employee knows are improper like the violation of acceptable standards of behavior. Theabove-mentioned scenario entails misconduct by the two male officers as they engaged in explicit sexual discourse at the workplace . Specifically, they did so in the presence of a male supervisor and a female colleague (Guerin, 2004). However, the supervisor, for reasons unstated did not take immediate corrective action, thus endangering the maintenance of good behavior. Moreover, the lack of corrective action encourages future misconduct, thereby threatening both the maintenance of good behavior and the business operations of the shift through the prevalence of misconduct.
Implied in the encounter is the potential of creating an unfavorable work environment for the female colleague for she might perceive discrimination because of gender. Sexual discrimination entails the creation of a hostile working environment through lewd comments that isolate an individual because of gender (Cihon & Castagnera, 2013). Moreover, sexual discrimination laws enable offended parties to resign and immediately effect legal proceedings against the former employer. Consequently, none of the Sergeant’s action will maintain the good conduct of the shift. Assuming the female colleague interpreted the Sergeant’s action as supportive of the misconduct, she will have limited reporting and complaint channels. Therefore, she may choose to resign and institute sexual harassment suits against the organization.
Supervisors, as part of management, should display behavior that is above the company standard. Thus, upon witnessing the lewd comments, Sergeant Stevens should have intervened to stop the exchange of lewd jokes in an impersonal manner, which enables him to address the misconduct without any uncertainty in his communication (Guerin, 2004). By observing their dignity and addressing the two officers in private, the Sergeant would be able to obtain employee agreement expressing confidence in the employees’ ability to follow the standard. In addition, he would have the time to articulate the role of the aforementioned standard. The female colleague may act as a witness given the potential of sexual harassment in the misconduct. Such action would enable for an interrogation of the supervisory files followed by documentation of the incident and any mitigating circumstances.
Scenario 2
Officer Smith has become very difficult to deal with. During roll call, he is sarcastic about any new policy changes, orders or directives were given to him or the group. He is also one of the most productive officers you have, and other officers respect his leadership abilities. Recently, his sergeant brought disciplinary charges against Officer Smith. This resulted in a suspension and Officer Smith has now become far less productive.
The concept of progressive discipline entails the use of increasingly stringent disciplinary actions and it provides the supervisor with the system to address either unsatisfactory behavior or poor performance. However, the particular circumstances of a situation allow for the flexible application of the concept thus the severity of the situation determines the level of disciplinary action. The underpinning principle of progressive discipline is the principle of just cause, which punishes employees only for objective and definite causes (Cihon & Castagnera, 2013). At the base of the incremental system are the policies and performance standards, constituting the expected practice under the supervisor. At this level, misconduct entails documentation through verbal warnings and letters of counsel, which the supervisor effects depending on the particular circumstances. The steps described constitute the unofficial steps in the progressive discipline concept. Moreover, the supervisor usually effects these steps.
The first official step within the progressive discipline concept entails a written reprimand, depending on the degree of the misconduct; the previous unofficial stages may not be applied. There are approximately seven guidelines that affect the use of the just cause concept in discipline cases. However, not all of them are applicable to the second scenario; a casual observation highlights the affected officers’ misconduct (Guerin, 2004). Thus, raising concerns whether the employer furnished the affected employee with information relating to the misconduct of insubordination prior to the commission of the act. There is no mention of an investigation to establish prior knowledge of the consequences of insubordination leading to the assumption that there was no investigation conducted.
Such a development creates another assumption that the employer provided all employees with updated knowledge of various misconducts and the relevant disciplinary actions. Moreover, there are certain exceptions in the systematic application of the just cause concept in disciplinary cases (Cihon & Castagnera, 2013). Therefore, depending on the degree of the misconduct, for instance, insubordination or theft of company property, heavily punishable and overtly offensive misconduct invariably attract disciplinary action. Such misconduct negates the premise established in the preceding paragraph on adequate communication relating to the foreknowledge of disciplinary action. Therefore, Sergeant Stevens’s disciplinary action will ensure the maintenance of good order within the unit. Insubordination actively challenges a supervisor’s authority over the team, which will create a tense dynamic within the unit. This is because Officer Smith openly challenged his supervisor’s authority and management capabilities by the sarcastic comments.
Insubordination attracts heavy disciplinary action and a suspension is a fair discipline considering that demotion and dismissal are the other alternatives. The loss in productivity is a natural consequence of the suspension. However, the situation can be resolved through private deliberations between the officer and his sergeant. The relationship dynamic between the sergeant and the officer will be a tense one after the suspension, thus, necessitating witnesses to the deliberations (Guerin, 2004). The objective of the deliberations is to restore the dignity of both parties and get the officer’s agreement on the elements of behavior that require change. The deliberations should a correctional action plan with a defined period. Moreover, there should be a clear communication of the consequences at the end of the correctional period. For example, after the stipulated period, future acts of insubordination will attract progressively longer suspensions, which may culminate in either dismissal or demotion.
References
Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2013). Employment and Labor Law . Cengage Learning.
Guerin, L. (2004). Workplace investigations: A step-by-step guide . Nolo.
