HRM210: Managing Human Resources - Case Study Assessment Answer

Managing Human Resources - Case Study

Case Scenario

Students have a choice of a case study. These case studies are available for download from BlackBoard under Assessment Task 2. This task can be done as an individual or in a group.

Assessment criteria will be identical. The first case study is based on performance management and the second one is based on the employer’s duty of care. Both are real cases from Fair Work Commission decisions in 2015.

Students please read both matters and choose one to research and report on. You can be guided by material from the required textbook or from the material on the CCH databases (available through the USC library – Wolters Kluwer CCH Intelliconnect — NB: don’t forget you have to sign in to get free access to the USC library’s resources, use the Discovery entry page on the Library’s website).

You are required to have a minimum of 8 academic references. Your textbook is a potential source of references as long as you cite the appropriate reference from within the textbook, not the actual textbook. For example, the use of Nankervis et al 2014 is discouraged. Minimum use is acceptable, overuse will be penalised.

Identify a minimum 5 key recommendations for the Human Resource Management professional to design improvements to resolve workplace issues described in the case you chose. Higher grades will be awarded to the more comprehensive reports. An example of the type of issues are:

• Determine performance needs and develops aplan.

• Implement plan (activities to achieve desired performance).

• Monitor and evaluate performance.

• Adjust, improve activities.

 

These assignments are solved by our professional international marketing Experts at My Assignment Services AU and the solution are high quality of work as well as 100% plagiarism free. The assignment solution was delivered within 2-3 Days.

Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Dismissal of employees from a firm by the employer should be lawful. A legitimate dismissal of an employee must be justified substantively and conducted in a formal procedural manner. A provision of the genuine reason for termination of an employee substantively explains the process making it lawful. For instance, the sacking of the applicant, Mr. Michael Torr by the respondent, Global Viandeb PtyLtd T/A Global Food and Wine has not justified applicable, and the whole process is unlawful. Issues not tackled properly, herein, are the ignorance of the employer to provide a formal prior warning before the dismissal of the employee and failing to provide clear evidence or the performance-related issues that were adequate to warrant the termination of the employee valid (Shah 2010, p. 109). Moreover, there was no warning communicated to the employee of his alleged insufficient production output or given an opportunity to respond to possible reasons for his incredible capacity and conduct within the premises of the firm.

According to Manamela (2010, p. 20), the law of dismissal only protects employees against unfair and unreasonable sacking by the employer when they serve for a substantial period. However, there are particular types of release prohibited from the first day an employee reports to work. For instance, sacking an employee because he or she is exercising a statutory right. It is important for businesses to have a lengthy opportunity to assess recruited employees in the process of weeding less performing employees before they become established.

In a fair ground, businesses should apply the method of performance as a tool to dismiss employees (Shah 2000). The employer of Mr. Michael Torr never used this approach to determine his capability but instead provided an improp2 letter of dismissal. There was a high possibility that the firm realized the underperformance of Mr. Michael Torr and failed to apply proper procedure in the process. This theory when implemented, there would be an effective and efficient performance in the job with an increased employee motivation and commitment. Employees function productively when the management is more efficient (Shah 2010, p. 109). Hence, management has a task of organizing, controlling, planning, and leading in all the business activities.

To dismiss and an underperforming employee, an employer must follow a reasonable and just procedure to carry out the whole process. However, most organizations find this process of confronting employees to pinpoint the areas of weakness a stressful and time-consuming process. For instance, the employer Global ViandePtyLtd T/A Global Food and Wine failed to observe this simple theory. In most cases, employees back off putting the whole process to where it can create more difficulties. Similarly, other employers would look for a less confrontational alternative hence offering their employees a contradicting agreed settlement that could prove expensive especially if the intended tactic backfires (Bertola et. al., 2010, p. 56).

The key to tackling an underperforming employee is the ability of the employer to be firm, organizes and procedural. He or she should ensure that a disciplinary set up is effectively established and adhered to the point either where the employer is back on the straight and narrow or until his or her dismissal. The owner of business has a consolation of understanding that if an employment tribunal scrutinizes the fairness of the dismissal, it takes into account the magnitude of the sizes and resources of the specified organization (Smith and Morton 2011, p. 78). It is vital for an employer to bear in mind the effects of lack of proper address of the performance issues usually goes beyond the unfair dismissal. Therefore, it becomes the base of ensuring positive performance and morale, with equally productive members observes that the less productive employees feel the wrath.

Informal stage

A meeting, usually informal between the employer and the employee is necessary mostly to make the employee improve the production rate. In contrast, most companies omit this stage for instance the case of Mr. Michael Torr. In this attempt, the company reminds the employee the expected standards clearly indicating where he or she is falling short. Regularly, the employer would positively and sharpen up his or her work rather than making the organization making unconfirmed conclusions based on the assumption of the capability of the employee. Where the poor performance of the employer is evident due to a deep-seated attitude problem, it would be appropriate for the organization to go through the formal procedure of disciplining employees (Sims & Brinkmann 2003).

Therefore, there is a reason to investigate the possible causes of underperformance by the employee the right way at the occurrence. Additionally, it would enable identifying any potential health concerned issues that may amount to a disability and recommend reasonable adjustments considered. It is important for every case of underperformance for the employer to bear in mind the outset whether any resources, training, or information may be necessary for the employee to attain the required set standards. It is important for the employer to discuss this for a close follow-up (Sims & Brinkmann 2013, p. 97).

Sims and Brinkmann note that suppose there is an informal approach of an employer because of poor performance, he can, if thought wise, issued with an informal verbal warning for this case. The company should clearly state on the aspects of the work an employee should improve on and how. He or she must set a period of review and make the employee aware that either his or her performance is under monitor at the end of that particular period. An alert to the employee on invoking the formal procedure supposes there is a recorded insufficient system in the productivity of the worker. The employer should keep all the written notes of the discussion and details of informal verbal warning, and the employee finds an opportunity to confirm the validity of all these (Shah 2010, p. 112).

If after a warning the reviews indicate underperformance by the employee, there would be the need for the employer to apply formal procedure against the company. However, there are possible cases where it might be fair and reasonable to dismiss an employee because of poor performance without going through the formal disciplinary process. For instance, there would be an urgency to provide official performance alerts where the employer is entirely unqualified hence uncompetitive for the role at stake (Sims and Brinkmann 2013, p. 45). Therefore, would be a complete waste of time putting him or her through a series of graduated alerts. Moreover, the employee would have shown signs of unwilling to change, refusing to admit his or her poor performance and performing extraordinarily poor in one of the crucial senior positions. Therefore, an employer who proposes to dismiss uncompetitive employee minus first going through the warning process tread extremely with a lot of care.

Formal warning stages.

This phase consists of a series of three signal stages, each resulting in an increasing level of advice. It comprises of the following typical models;

• Verbal warning stage

• First written warning stage

• Final written warning stage

Depending on the nature of the job of the employer, a relatively long performance review period may be used (Eger 2013, p. 394). For instance, the original evaluation period for a sale employee might be three months if there is a time delay between the employee and the receipt of the customer orders. The disciplinary procedure ought to be flexible to allow the business to adopt the models (Sims & Brinkmann 2013, p. 23). At every stage, there are arising points such as;

• The employer writes to the affected employee clearly showing that his or her performance is unsatisfactory with reasons plus an invitation to a meeting. The letter indicates the stage for publishing the disciplinary procedures. It is important to advise the employer have the company of a work college to the meeting.

• The company reviews the performance against the expected standards and explains all the perceived shortcomings from the perspective of the management. The employer should give the employee to respond to the faults and discuss together.

• There is a need for the business to take complete notes of the meeting and later sends them to the affected employee along with the outcome of the discussion.

i. Dismissal meeting

Norén (2014, p. 56) notes that the release meeting occurs when the affected employee fails to adhere to the previous warnings and adamantly fails to achieve any. The employer writes to the affected employee that his or her services are up to date period unsatisfactory. The employee should as before having a company of a colleague. It is appropriate that different managers chair the meeting who will finally make a decision. However, this may not be important because if there is the dismissal of affected employee and the employee exercises his or her right of appeal, different manager reviews the decision. However, in some large organizations, it is important to bring in various managers during the meeting dismissal stage. Whoever chairs the meeting, the review of the performance of the employee should be against the target when he or she received the final written warning clearly indicating how the employer has fallen out of those warnings. It is important to note points raised by the employee during the meeting. The investigation on the performance of the employee and the period in which it will take the survey carried out determines the length of adjournment (Eger 2013, p. 392). The employee gets a precise information verbally especially face to face and given the exact reasons for the decision made. The employer puts the decision in the form of writing, and the employee notified of his or her right of appeal.

It is not appropriate to sack an employee for an offencenot accounted for (Barrett 2013, p. 34). There is a need for employees to adopt disciplinary rules that establish the standard required of their employees. The content and form of disciplinary rules vary according to the size and the nature of the business. Therefore, a larger company needs a better formal approach of discipline. The rules of the employer must create certainty and consistency when it comes to applying the control calling for clear standards of conduct available to the employees in a way easily understood by all the staff.

The dismissal of Mr. Michael Torr by the respondent, Global ViandePtyLtd T/A Global Food and Wine was not fair. The employer should have conducted an advanced investigation to determine the basis grounds for dismissal. It did not need a formal inquiry. The employer should have notified Mr. Michael Torr the allegations using a form and a language that he can reasonably understand. The employer should have allowed the opportunity to state a case in connection with the perceived claims. The manager needed enough time to prepare the response and to the assistance of a fellow employee (Eger 2013, p. 389), after the inquiry, the employer should have communicated the decision taken and finally furnish Mr. Michael Torr with a written notification of the decision made. Nevertheless, the respondent, Global ViandePtyLtd T/A Global Food, and Wine were supposed to give the employee reasons for dismissal rather than just providing a letter of dismissal. The employer was to remind Mr. Michael of any rights to refer the issue of the council with jurisdiction or to any dispute resolution processes regarding the collective agreement.

One does not need to invoke formal procedures of dismissal when one misses achieving the preferred standard. For the case of Mr. Michael, the employ was to make an informal advice and correction, which is the most efficient way to deal with violations work discipline, one of the possible reasons for sacking the employee. Usually, repeated misconduct warrant warnings graded according to the degree of severity. A more severe misconduct may call for a final warning or indefinite dismissal.