Introduction
Across a majority of the factories in the world, the problem of internal theft has affected the sector to a more significant extent. Instances of company property theft by employees have become serious issues thus the enforcement of such rules that curtail the happening of such behaviors. As such, the resulting resolution that has been made by many businesses has been to search workers before they go out of the factory premises by the security guards. For instance, in the case of Chenkin and Bellevue, the hospital was randomly searching the packages of their employees. There were no such procedures as looking into the bag of each worker at the hospital but by just random selection. In addition, in the case of ACME Company that deals with the production of electronic devices, the problem of internal theft has become a severe issue of concern thus prompting the formulation of administrative policies to curb such instances ( Kilburn, 2013) . Therefore, the primary focus of this essay paper will be based on the analysis of Chenkin and Bellevue as well as provide recommendations to ACME Company executives to deal with the issue of internal theft.
Description of the issues related to the search program the court needed to resolve
In the case of Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP (1979), the main point of contention was the search program that had been put in place by the management. The main reason for putting in place such measures was the many cases of hospital properties. As a result, the management of the hospital decided to permit their security guards to search the bags of their employees randomly. In the case where an employee does not want to be searched, there was an option of leaving their bags in a designated room before entering the hospital. Through such measures, the hospital executives believed that the issue of hospital facility theft would reduce and eventually end. One of the employees of the hospital who was the plaintiff in the case refused to be searched by the security guards on two occasions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The argument of the worker before the court through his counsel was that the search program was unconstitutional since it interfered with the provisions of the United States Constitution of individual’s privacy. On the other hand, the hospital management was the argument that the system allowed to curb the issue of internal theft. The security guards of Bellevue hospital agreed that the random search program has aided in reducing the problem of internal theft in the hospital since some employees usually are caught unawares. Therefore, the court needed to determine whether the search program implemented by Bellevue Hospital was unconstitutional or not as claimed by the plaintiff.
Explanation of the positions of Chenkin and Bellevue advanced to the court regarding Chenkin’s claim that the hospital’s package control system was unconstitutional
In the court, both the sides had conflicting believes on who was right regarding the search program in the hospital. The fact that the security guards could randomly search the bags of other employees did not mean that the person in question had stolen the hospital properties. The main point of argument brought by the plaintiff was the issue of privacy intrusion. Chenkin argued that the search program was not by the United States Constitution. Therefore, the fact that the employee had refused to be searched by the security guards on two occasions prompted the hospital to suspend him thus; he did not receive his pay during his five days suspension. Therefore, the plaintiff wanted to be paid for the days he was serving his punishment because of refusing to be searched by security guards on two occasions. On the other hand, the hospital management believed that the plaintiff had gone against the regulations of the facility through knowingly rejecting being searched. The fact that there was an option of leaving the bag in a designated room by the hospital was another point of concern as to why the plaintiff insisted on passing with his bag in and out unsearched. The company argued that the system was instrumental to the reduction of internal theft cases among the employees thus constitutional. The plaintiff claimed that the search program was against the provisions of the United States Constitution.
Details of the court’s ruling and rationale
In the provision of its ruling, the court put into consideration three factors that were crucial to determining whether the search program was unconstitutional or not. The three vital factors considered include the degree of intrusion by the search program, public necessity strength and the search efficacy. The fact that the plaintiff was complaining about the search program meant that he wanted to put the issue in a unique case that is different to airport cases. In addition, the security guards searching the bag of the plaintiff on the second occasion raised many questions as to whether they remembered him from the first instance. As such, he claimed that the search program was discriminatory to the workers since it interfered with their privacy. In the end, the court ruled that the search program put in place by the hospital was in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution on privacy intrusion. Therefore, the hospital was not in a position to suspend or punish the plaintiff by refusing to be searched by the security guards.
How the court’s decision impacts security operation systems
The ruling of the case has had a significant impact on the various security operation systems formulation. Most of the companies across the world have been keen on ensuring that their security systems do not go against the provisions of the constitution. In essence, employees usually are not searched when going out of the company not unless there is the need to perform the search. Therefore, businesses have turned to relying on CCTV cameras put in place to monitor the movement of their workers ( Hoekstra, 2016) . Through such measures, the issue of internal theft is solved to some extent since an employee would fear being seen stealing from the company in question.
Application of the courts’ ruling to the formulation of policies to be presented to the executives
In the case of ACME Company, which has of late faced the problem of internal theft to a more considerable extent, the court ruling will profoundly influence the position taken by the executives in formulating the ways to curb such occurrences. For instance, putting in place such policies as search programs would be detrimental to the promotion of individuals’ privacy. As such, the fourth amendment provides that each person have the right to privacy not unless the property causes danger to the wellbeing of the more significant society. Therefore, since the company is a private institution that cannot have the same search regulations as those of places such as airports, there is the need of relying on other policies such as ensuring that employees do not get into work premises with bags that can be used to hide electronic devices produced in the company. In addition, CCTV cameras can be instrumental in monitoring the movement of workers thus preventing theft cases ( Ecker, 2014) . Therefore, when formulating the various policies to be adopted by ACME Company, they should be those that do not interfere with the rights of the employees in the organization.
References
Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC., 479 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). District Court, S.D. New York
Ecker, R. B. (2014). To Catch a Thief: The Private Employer's Guide to Getting and Keeping an Honest Employee. UMKC L. Rev. , 63 , 251.
Hoekstra, D. J. (2016). Workplace Searches-A Legal Overview. Labor Law Journal , 47 (2), 127.
Kilburn, E. M. (2013). Fourth Amendment: Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on" Reasonable" Grounds. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973- ) , 78 (4), 792-827.
