Maria A Rivas
Professor Tammi Clearfield
Case Study: Anti-Nepotism Policy
January 16, 2015
Case 10: An Anti-Nepotism Policy
My interpretation of the Anti-Nepotism Policy is the favoritism or interest that could occur on the basis of hiring current employee’s relatives. I have always wondered why most job application asks if there is a relative working for the same company. The reason is due to many issues that could occur simply because there are relatives working in the company. According to a policy clause called “Anti-Nepotism Policy,” (IAP) by J. Spencer Wickham, explains that, “the employment of relatives can cause various problems, including charges of favoritism, conflicts of interest, family discord and scheduling conflicts that work to the disadvantage of both the company and its employees” (Wickham, n.d). The following are basis of qualifications that the company will consider for employment:
Create a supervisor/subordinate relationship with a family member that cannot otherwise be managed
Create an adverse impact on work performance
Create either an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest (Wickham, n.d)
Such policy also summarizes how the assignment process will be for the employee, how they will be promoted, and therefore the hours the employee will have so there is a decrease in the interaction with such relative. The Human Resource department should consider evaluating the possible situations that could occur with the interaction of employee and relative and how that can affect the overall performance of these employees. Of course, they must not discriminate against such employee and always consider the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
Description of the Case
Keith Walton is employed with Manatee Power Plant and when he filled out the application for employment (C-1) he indicated that there were no relatives working...