2) Problem Statement
• Arthur Wayne believes he was dismissed unfairly with no real warning, which is in contradiction to the Supervisory Manual.
• EcoCare believe he was dismissed fairly.
• No real process seems to exist to manage Wayne’s sudden change from above average performance to low performance, no one really asks why?
• Since no process exists, it explains as to why Wayne felt shock with the sudden request for his resignation.
3) Analysis of Alternatives
• I guess there is some form of appraisal process in place as we know that Wayne’s performance was measured in previous years, if only done on a yearly basis, then it may be too late to capture any new issues, so why include a quarterly checkpoint of progress with a formal mid year review to highlight earlier any potential issues.
• Implementing a process that when any manager in the company wishes to fire any employee to engage HR first to confirm the company policy is followed as well as an legal issues.
• A system to capture feedback, ie. Should the workforce have had a formal method of providing feedback to Wayne about the company car policy early on rather than waiting until it got ugly.
• It appears that there is confusion on if the Supervisory manual should be followed formally or not, that needs to be confirmed
• If so, then Wayne should have had an Oral warning, followed by a written warning etc.. if his performance had truly dropped below par.
• It appears HR believe Wayne has issues working with other members of the company, perhaps a 360 degree feedback process would help to identify this.
• To update the employment contracts with a more precise procedure for discharges.
4) Conclusion/Solution
• I guess a mixture of the above, to implement a more disciplined appraisal system with formal mid year reviews, if performance drops are seen, then a program between HR, Manager and employee to monitor the process and help to improve the performance again. Then if...