Please Read the Case properly. Briefly summaries the case and answer the all questions inside the case. and submit your answer with attached file in word document. Good Luck. A peer review panel of managers and service workers from a restaurant chain must dectide tolvether or not a vonitress lias been unfairly fired from her job. It felt like a knife going through me!" declared Mary Campbel1, 53, after she was fired rom her waitressing job at a restaurant in the Red Dobster chain. But instead af suing or what she considered unfair dismissal after 19 years of service, Campbell called for a eer review, seeking to recover her job and three weeks of lost wages. Three weeks after the firing, a panel of employees from different Red Lobster cestaurants was reviewing the evidence and trying to determine whether the server had, in fact, been unjustly fired for allegedly stealing a guest comment card completed ty a couple of customers whom she had served. Peer Review at Darden Industries Red Lobster was owned by Darden Industries, which also owned other restaturant chains like Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque, and Grill and Seasons 52. The company, which has more than 65,000 cmployees, had adopted a policy of encouraging peer reyiew of disputed employee firings and disciplinary actions several years earlier. The company's key objectives were to limit worker lawsuits and case workplace tensions. Advocates of the peer review approach. which had been adopted at several other companies, believed it was a very effective way of channeling constructively the pain and anger that employees felt after being fired or disciplined by their managers. By reducing the incidence of lawsuits, a company could alsio save on legal expenses. A Darden spokesperson stated that the peer review program had been "trememdously successful" in keeping valuable employees from untair dismissal. Each year. about 100 disputes ended up in peer review, with only 10 subsequently resulting in lawsuits. Red Lobster managers and many employees also credited peer neview with reducing racial tensions. Ms. Campbell. who said she had received dozens of calls at support, chose peer revicw over a lawsuit not only because it was much cheaper, but 1 also Iiked the iden of being judged by people who krow how things work in a little restaurant, The Evidence The review panel included a general manager, an assistant manager, a werver, a hosters, and a bartender, who had all voluntered to review the circumstances of Mary Campbell's firing. Each panelist had received peer review training and was receiving regular wages plus travel expenses. The instructions to panetists were simply to do what they felt was fair. Campbell had been fircd by Jear Larimer, the general manager at the Red Lobeter in Marston. Where the former worked as a restaurant server. The reasen given for the in Marng wan, that Campbell had asked the reataurant's hosteris, Eve Tauntor, for the kisy to the gukst comment box and stole a cand from it. The card had bect cimpleted by is Jean Larimer's Testimony. Larimer, who su. pervised 100 full-and part-time employees, testified that she had dismissed Campbell after one of the two customers complained angrily to her and her supervisor. "She [the guest] felt violated," declared the manager, "becauce her card was taken from the box and her complaint about the food was if. nored." Larimer drew the panel's attention to the company rule book, pointing out that Campbell had violated the policy that forbade removal of company property. Mary Campbell's Testimony. Campbell test. fied that the female customer had requested that her prime rib be cooked "well done" and then subsequently complained that it was fatty and under: cooked. The waitress told the panel that she had politely suggested that "prime rib alwayst has fat on it,- but arranged to have the meat cooked some more. However, the woman still seemed unhappy. she poured some steak sauce over the meat, but then pushed away her plate without eating all the food. When the customer remained displeased, Campbell offend her a free dessert. But the guests decided to leave, paid the bill, filled out the guest comment cand, and dropped it in the guest comment box. Admitting she was consumed by curiosity. Campbell asked Eve Taunton, the restaurant's hostess, for the key to the box. After removing and reading the card, ahe pocketed it. Her intent, she declared, was to show the cand to Ms. Larimer, who had been concerned earlier that the prime rib served at the restaurant was overcooked, not undercooked. However, she forgot about the card and later, accidentally, threw it out. Eve Taunton's testimony. At the time of the firing, Taunton, a 17-year old student, was working at Red Lobster for the summer. "I didn't think it was a big deal to give her [Campbell] the key," she said. "A lot of people would come up to me to get it." The Panel Deliberates Having heard the testimony, the members of the neview panel had fo deelde whether Ms. Larimer had been justified in firing Ms. Campbell. The panelists initiat resctions an the situation were split by rank, with the hourly workers supporting Camplell and the managers supporting Larimer. But then the debate began in earmist in an effort to readi consensus. Study Questions 1. What are the marketing implications of this situation? 2. Evaluate the concept of peer rewiew, What are its strengths and wasalencs.es? What type of environment is required to make it work well? 3. Review the evidence. Do you believe the testimany prosented? 4. What decision would you make and why