ABC manufacturing

The ABC Manufacturing Company is a metal working plant under the direction of a plant

manager who is known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman noticed Bhola, one

of the workers, at the time$-$clock punching out two cards his own and the card of Nathu,

a fellow worker. Since it was the rule of the company that each man must punch out his

own card, the foreman asked Bhola to accompany him to the Personnel Director, who

interpreted the incident as a direct violation of a rule and gave immediate notice of

discharge to both workers. The two workers came to see the Personnel Director on the

following day. Nathu claimed innocence on the ground that he had not asked for his card

to be punched and did not know at the time that it was being punched. He had been

offered a ride by a friend who had already punched out and who could not wait for him

to go through the punch$-$out procedure. Nathu was worried about his wife who was ill at

home and was anxious to reach home as quickly as possible. He planned to take his card

to the foreman the next morning for reinstatement, a provision sometimes exercised in

such cases. These circumstances were verified by Bhola. He claimed that he had

punched Nathu's card the same time he punched his own, not being conscious of any

wrongdoing.

The Personnel Director was inclined to believe the story of the two men but did not feel

he could reverse the action taken. He recognized that these men were good workers and

had good records prior to this incident. Nevertheless, they had violated a rule for which

the penalty was immediate discharge. He also reminded them that it was the policy of

the company to enforce the rules without exception.

A few days later the Personnel Director, the Plant Manager, and the Sales Manager sat

together at lunch. The Sales Manager reported that he was faced with the necessity of

notifying one of their best customers that his order must be delayed because of the

liability of one department to conform to schedule. The department in question was the

one from which the two workers had been discharged. Not only had it been impossible to

replace these men to date, but disgruntlement over the incident had led to significant

decline in the cooperation of the other workers. The Personnel Director and the Sales

Manager took the position that the discha rge of these two valuable men could have

been avoided if there had been provision for onsidering the circumstances of the case.

They pointed out that the incident was costly to the company in the possible loss of a

customer, in the dissatisfaction within the employee group, and in the time and money

that would be involved in recruiting and training replacements. The Plant Manager could

not agree with this point of view. $"$We must have rules if we are to have efficiency; and

the rules are no god unless we enforce them. Furthermore, if we start considering all

these variations in circumstances, we will find ourselves loaded down with everybody

thinking he is an exception." He admitted that the grievances were frequent but

countered with the point that they could be of little consequence if the contract agreed

to by the union was followed to the letter.

Questions

$($a$)$ Identify the core issues in the case

$($b$)$ Place yourself in the position of the Personnel Director. Which of the following

courses of action would you have chosen and why?

$($i$)$ Would you have discharged both men?

$($ii$)$ Would you have discharged Bhola only?

$($iii$)$ Would you have discharged Nathu only?

$($iv$)$ Would you have discharged neither of them? Justify your choice of decision.

$($c$)$ What policy and procedural changes would you recommend for handling such cases

in future?