Resolution or Course of Action by each of the Positions
Employee Relations Specialist : An employee relations specialist should dig deeper into the circumstances that could have caused the issue. For example, the specialist should start by assessing the relationship between the two employees to understand if there were conflicts or bad blood between them ( Raines, 2012) . As much as we know, the employee who reported the case misunderstood his colleague, the specialist may not have the information when solving the case. For this reason, the specialist should talk to everybody involved in the case, including the two employees and their supervisor to get information.
Supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the threat : The supervisor should have talked to the employee who allegedly made the threat before proceeding to report the matter to his immediate supervisor. The supervisor may have felt threatened and needed to take the quickest action before the threat came into action. The incident was based on a misunderstanding, but it turned out into a complex issue because the supervisor felt threatened.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Security manager: The security manager must be very concerned with the case since it is a case that falls into his/her duties and responsibilities. The manager should involve the security team/council in solving the issue. The employee who allegedly made the threat should be called to a meeting to give his side of the story. His colleague should also be asked to provide the words that his colleagues made. This way, the security team will have better insights into the case. What is more, the security team should evaluate the two employees' profiles to get information regarding their workplace conduct ( Raines, 2012) . Previous workplace violence cases could suggest that the employee was indeed capable of making threats or even executing them.
Legal Advisor : The legal advisor has the responsibility of advising organizations and their employees on legal matters. For instance, the legal advisor, in this case, will explain to the involved parties the repercussions of their actions when they are arraigned if they are arraigned in court. The legal advisor will advise the supervisors and the security team on the best legal action they should take against the employee who allegedly threatened his supervisor ( Murnane, Simpson & Jongman, 2016) . The security team and the supervisors will then choose the best course of action. In that regard, the decision that is taken by top management heavily relies on the advice given by the legal advisor.
How the Agency would have handled the Case if the key had demonstrated certain Behavior that Cast Doubt on his Credibility
When the key witness casts doubt on his credibility, the agency embarks on an assessment of the witness's past behavior. A thorough analysis of the employee's behavior inside and outside the workplace can provide some insights that would form the basis of judging his credibility ( Raines, 2012) . On the other hand, the agency can subject the key witness to further interviews involving experts to determine his believability. However, it is evident that all the involved parties did not analyze the original words that were deemed to be threats. If the agency could get the exact words from the defendant and the witness, it would be easier to solve the situation. In this case, it is not a matter of credibility but rather a matter of misunderstandings. The agency will proceed to solve the issue before passing it to courts of law by creating a detailed report of the circumstances that led to the issue at hand ( Murnane, Simpson & Jongman, 2016) . A review of the report by different stakeholders may enable them to give the information that deems the case worth solving in courts of law or with the organization.
References
Murnane, R., Simpson, A., & Jongman, B. (April 11, 2016). Understanding risk: what makes a risk assessment successful?. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7, 2, 186-200.
Raines, S. S. (2012). Conflict Management for Managers: Resolving Workplace, Client, and Policy Disputes . Chichester: Wiley.
