The story Is about Labor Industrial Relations between Martha Philander, an employee at a fast food franchise and her supervisor. It shows how employee, employer relations van be destroyed by insurance. According to recent survey conducted by the Society of Human Resource Management, employees are more likely to trust their supervisor or manager than they are to trust the senior leaders in the organization. Nevertheless, experts encourage leaders to work on building trust. The Iambi labor Act Policy on HIVE/AIDS protects the rights of employees against any form of description.
The National Policy on HIVE/AIDS was signed by the Government of the Republic of Iambi, as a guide to the public and Private Sector on how to deal with WAITS at the workplace. Some of the objectives of the Policy is to: * Facilitate the reduction of stigma and discrimination against people infected with and affected by WAITS * Ensure that people infected and affected by HIVE/AIDS enjoy equal rights in a culture of accepted and openness. It Is clear In this case that Ms Philander is a sick employee.
Even though her absenteeism has affected her performance, she has followed the Labor Act by ensuring that she produced medical certificates whenever she was sick. This in accordance with the Labor Act No. 11. 2007 Labor, (section 24). Even though her performance has been affected, she cannot be discriminated based on her health. Act No. 11. 2007 section 5(2) of the Labors Act states that” a person must not discriminate In any practice which has the effect of discrimination against any individual on the grounds that he/she has AIDS or HIVE.
Chapter 6 of the National Policy on WAITS compels all Public and Private Sector workplace to have policies that shall provide that: * No employee shall be compelled to disclose his or her HIVE status to their employer or other employees. Where an employee chooses to voluntarily disclose his or her HIVE status to the employer or to another employee, such Information shall not be disclosed to others without that employee’s express written consent. * No employer shall terminate the employment of an employee solely on the grounds of HIVE status or family responsibilities relating to WAITS. * long as they are medically Ft to do so.
When on medical grounds they cannot continue with normal employment, verifiable efforts should be made to officer them alternative employment or other reasonable arrangements without prejudice to their infinite. * An employee living with or affected by HIVE/AIDS shall be subjected to the same condition relating to sick or compassionate leave as those applicable to any other employee in terms of law, or conditions of service applicable. Right to Confidentiality. The company philosophy is to safeguard personal employee information in its possession to ensure the confidentiality of the information.
Additionally, the company will only collect personal information that is required to pursue its business operations and to comply with government reporting and disclosure requirements. Section 50(2), of the Labor Act, 2007, the employer is not required to disclose information if it is legally privileged; any law or court order prohibits the employer from disclosing it; it is confidential and, if disclosed, might cause substantial harm to an employee or the employer; or it is private personal information relating to an employee, unless that employee consents to the disclosure of that information.
The manager and the assistant has disclosed the HIVE status of Ms Philander without her written consent. This has resulted in mistrust as Ms Philander disclosed her status to them in confidence. This is evident from her reaction to the general manager when she was called and she ended up denied having disclosed such information to the manager and the assistant. According to s. 1 of the Labor Act 2007 a trade union means an association of employees whose principal purpose is to regulate relations between employees and their employers.
Chapter 6 of the Labor Act has established the legal framework for the formation and registration of trade unions and other matters connected with, or incidental to, trade union rights and activities. Going to her trade union was the right thing for Martha as she felt the need to. According to s. 59 of the Labor Act, a trade union is entitled to institute proceedings or bring a case on behalf of its members and to represent its members in any proceedings brought under the act. The trade union wrote to the manager feeling that its member’s right to confidentiality is violated.
Yes it was the best way to approach the organization as a means of protecting its members. In conclusion and based on the above, the organization does not have the right to dismiss Ms Philander on the basis of her HIVE status. It is therefore, important or the companies to familiarize themselves with the existing Labor Laws so that HER issues are handled accordingly. 2. Acting as a manager, how would you approach the issue with Martha Philander? As a manager I look out for the best interest of our of our staff and company as a whole we felt the obligation to enquire about Ms.
Philanderer’s status to help in assisting measures to bring about more knowledge of the s to be situation as to be better suited and equipped on the matter. As a manager a would arrange to meet with both Martha Philander and her union. A meeting without prejudice’s no arty will hold the next party for what is said in that meeting. I would preferment we talk things through instead of taking it to labor court. It is important to outline an organization will be met as those of Martha Philander according to the regulations of her union.
I would also recommend making some adjustments to her task for examples instead of chopping vegetable assign her to grilling the meat products,as to decrease risk of cuts. There are other aspects that need to be taken into consideration like leave for treatment or unexpected sick leave. As a manager I would eave to look into the best interest for Martha ass well as the company, therefore to keep her productive I would provide her with medical aid and any health training if necessary to keep the productivity high.
Confidentiality was not broken ion this case because within the company and within the management in particular we regard ourselves as one family and share and keep each other safe. 3. As a manager of a fast food outlet, how would you respond to the letter from the Union? Assume the matter remains unresolved with the union. What possible course of action is available to the Union? The issue in the case is that a manager asked about the employee’s HIVE status in front of the assistant.
An individual’s (employees) HIVE status is of a personal nature, no one must be forced to disclose their status or discuss personal problems. This is supported by Act no. 11. 2007; section (5), which clearly states that employees have the right to confidentiality and privacy between themselves and their employer. Another issue in this case is the manager telling the general manager about Martha Philanders HIVE status without consulting her first. By doing that he’s violated the employee’s right to privacy.
As a manager I would not have approached Martha Philander in front of my assistant. Since she always has a non specific medical notes, it should tell that the cause of her absence is possibly of a personal nature and she must not be forced to talk about it. I would have approached Martha Philander alone and explain to her why her absence is such a big issue, how it is affecting the business productivity and business image. With that she will understand how important she is to the business and if comfortable and willing, to tell what her problem is.
Regarding the letter from the Union, as a manager, firstly; we would acknowledge ND confirm the receipt of the letter from the Union, secondly; we will acknowledge our weakness regarding the way we handled Martha Philanders case. We will arrange a meeting with the union and Martha Philander and try to resolve the matter internally before it comes in public view or goes to the courts. We will explain that we were not trying to discriminate. We will make them understand that we approached Martha Philander with the intention of solving the absenteeism issue.
Since it is a fast food outlet availability of staff is important because customers must be served fast and efficiently. We will apologize on behalf of our line manager for breaking protocol by not seeking Martha Philanders approval to disclose her status. Martha Philander and the union must be made aware that human resource is the most important resource when it comes to fast food business, which must make the line manager wanting to know why she is absent tolerable. But at the same time, not using it as a Justification for violating her right to confidentiality and privacy.
Assuming the matter cannot be resolved internally by Martha Philander and the she can sue for damages. This may mean she will stop being an employee at this equines. By looking at his issue we can conclude that confidentiality and trust in the workplace is very crucial. To create a good working environment, employees must voluntary and willingly decide to talk to their employers about personal problems without any pressure. 4. Consider the impact this incident may have on employee relations and outline the measures you would institute to restore or prevent future occurrences.
Introduction The impact on the case of Martha Philander as an employee of a fast food franchise on employee relations may be distorted by looking back at the definition of employee relations. Employee relations involve the body of work concerned with maintain employer-employee relationships that contribute to satisfactory productivity, efficiency, motivation and morale levels of of all employees in the workplace. HIVE/AIDS is a health issue, epidemic in nature and affects a business in a number of ways.
The prevalence of the disease impacts the productivity of any business at every level and the cost of running any form business worldwide. The concerns that potential investors, and especially human resource managers have about the epidemic revolve around the fact that organizations will soon have to deal with a workforce of whom en third may be infected with HIVE/AIDS and with a situation in which an organization could loose key people, as well as 25% to 50% of its workforce according to studies by the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (1999) on population figures in the region.
Essentially, Employee relations is concerned with preventing and resolving problems involving individuals which arise out of or affect work situations (NASA. Gob. Com; 02/282012). We would address this situation in this franchise by ensuring that all top personnel, line managers and employees in the organizational truce from top to bottom are equipped with all the necessary training and knowledge upon the induction process of all new employees into the workplace.
This would be done through training and knowledge based training courses that allow for staff members to be equipped with all the necessary tools on how to professionally and courteously attend to employees and staff members with employee equity, especially relating to key aspects of HIVE and AIDS. Analyzing this from Ms. Philanders point of view is there a negative impact on the rest of the employees. Employees might start office gossip and avoiding Mrs.. Philander due to her illness. This would reduce her morale, motivation and overall Job satisfaction.
Furthermore, this would affect all employees’ performance and input at work as their focus would be interfered with because of this issue. The most important issue to be tackled with is Trust Building between employees and managers of this franchise. Our company would do its utmost to restore or prevent such occurrences front taking place by implementing or ensuring that the following procedures are implemented correctly: * To provide an understanding of the rationale for HIVE/AIDS for the world of work or n the workplace at all times. Behavior Consistency- this deals with employees ability to predict future activities of management based on mangers past behavior. Promises to employees such as their employee right to confidentiality of information related to an employees HIVE status. * Employees are not disappointed when they rely on what management promised to do when certain situational situations occur such as those issues which are directly related to HIVE/AIDS in the workplace. * Integrity builds trust, and a relationship of trust between management and employees can have a positive impact on employee work behaviors. Demonstration of concern – Managers should be sensitive to the interests of employees when making critical decisions and show concern for their welfare. * Sharing and delegation of authority – Management must seek input from employees when making decisions that affect the employees. * Communication – Management must provide employees with accurate information about the affairs of the organizations and freely share ideas with employees on how to improve issues related to HIVE and AIDS in the workplace. * Discuss the components of the HIVE aerogramme in the world of work. The issues tackled will be how to council those who are affected by HIVE. * HER policies with respect employee benefits, protocol measures in place to equip both employees and employers on the legal and ethical practices within the organization in relation to HIVE and AIDS in the workplace. * HIVE and AIDS workshops, educating staff of the negative impact of stigmas and the negative impact these stigmas have on those affected including the organization. Team building exercises between employees and or all staff members. * To discuss the extent of the HIVE/AIDS problem.
To familiarize the participants with the techniques of interpersonal communication to enhance the effectiveness of health education sessions. * To familiarize the participants with the country response to HIVE/AIDS being undertaken under National AIDS Control Programmer. Overall we would like to acknowledge that our company will do its best to ensure the promotion of equality and openness around HIVE/AIDS, a creation of a balance between rights and responsibilities between the employer and employee and the restoration of the dignity of persons who are affected by HIVE.
AIDS. This is because we believe that our biggest asset at this franchise is our human resources. 5. Relate the case to the principles of Justice and fairness. Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. In this case every employee has the the right to confidentiality especially when it involves sensitive issues such as HIVE and AIDS in the workplace. Martha Philanderer’s right to confidentiality as highlighted in the Labor Act (2007) (Act No. 0 (7) of 2007) has been violated which is why she has informed her union of her intention to take action against the employer which is KEF in this case. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. The most fundamental principle of Justice-?one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago-?is the principle that “equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally. In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: “Individuals should be treated are involved. ” For example, if Jack and Martha Philander both do the same work, and here are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Martha simply because he is a man, or because he is white or because of his HIVE status, then we have an injustice-?a form of discrimination-?because race, HIVE status and sex are not relevant to normal work situations.
Act No. 1 1, 2007 LABOR ACT, 2007 also states that: A person must not discriminate in any employment decision directly or indirectly, or adopt any requirement or engage in any practice which has the effect of coordination against any individual on one or more of the following grounds – (a) race, color, or ethnic origin; (b) sex, marital status or family responsibilities; (c) religion, creed or political opinion; (d) social or economic status; (e) degree of physical or mental disability; (f) AIDS or HIVE status; or (g) previous, current or future pregnancy.
There are, however, many differences that we deem as Justifiable criteria for treating people differently.
For example, we think it is fair and Just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children f others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is Just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is Just when someone who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria-?need, desert, contribution, and effort-? e acknowledge as Justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous. On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not Justifiable grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, HIVE status, race, or their religious preferences.
If the Judge’s nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to Jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works test the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it’s unfair. We also believe it isn’t fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn’t compensated for a harm he or she suffered. And the people involved in the “brown lung hearings” felt that it wasn’t fair that some diseases were provided with disability compensation, while other similar diseases weren’t.