Employee Profiles and Coaching Session
Role Plays
1. Resolution to the issue outlined in the Employee profiles and the coaching session to assist the Employee address the issue:
Employees Tony and Marie are both experienced employees of Housefriends. Tony is the supervisor and Marie is in the Bookkeeper and Administration department. Marie is a caretaker in the position of Tony as the relief Supervisor. The one-on one meeting would essentially require the manager, me, to initially make the employees comfortable with the manager. This is important to make the employees come up with the issue that they are facing to the manager and therefore find a solution to their problem.
In case of Tony, it is important to address the issue of the external link, present in the website of the company, to a home business that a friend of his operates. business provides installation of homewares that Housefriends sells yet the company is not aware about it. Tony should be informed that the company should be informed about the new addition to the website, as the presence of the external link on the company website is ethically unsound and does not reflect a healthy practice on the part of the management of the company. The management thus has come to mistrust his motives with such ideas although he often presented the manager with new and innovative ideas for internet marketing that would certainly boost traffic to the site.
In case of Marie, however, the lack of ‘real-world’ experience in managing people makes her uncertain and she lacks confidence to make decisions and avoids possible confrontation. In the initial meeting, the objective of the manager should be to address this issue and discuss with her the significant range of issues she wants help with. Since Marie has a keen interest interest in the environment and everything green. The management of the company should discuss the issue of her team member swapping the ‘origin of manufacture’ tags with ‘Australian made’ tags while she watched, and she did nothing. She is aware from past conversations of the requirement for high ethical standards for the stores’ new image yet she did not say anything to her team member when they made this mistake.
KPI Results Generated from their Team
A performance indicator or key performance indicator (KPI) is a type of performance measurement. KPIs evaluate the success of an organization or of a particular activity in which it engages. Key performance indicators also called “strategic measures” – are both actions and tools of measurement used to monitor the progress toward achieving these objectives. In its simplest form, a KPI is a measurement device that helps to understand how an organization is doing in regard to its goals. Effective KPIs are actionable, crucial, and easily communicated throughout the organization. The key performance indicator in this context is based on the information provided about the two employees – Tony and Marie. The key performance indicator is a set of quantifiable measures that a company or industry uses to gauge or compare performance in terms of meeting their strategic and operational goals. KPIs vary between companies and industries, depending on their priorities or performance criteria, also referred to as ‘key success indicators (KSI)’.
Key Performance Indicators
This report tries to find out the reasons why the organisation lost its unfair dismissal case with Fair Work Australia. It also explores the methods or the steps that the organisation should have been doing for it to have successfully defended its position against Sam’s claim of unfair dismissal. It also finds out the correct way to terminate Sam in accordance with legal and organisational requirements. It also tries to find out the steps which the company should have taken in order to avoid this situation.
The reason that the company lost to its employee, Sam in this case of dismissal, are many. There were some internal lags in the company which resulted in Sam winning the case. As the new manager of Sam, I have been spending time to try and understand her issues and have reallocated resources in order to give Sam some extra time until she is confident and competent in using the new programming language. However, in a meeting about her inability to meet her latest deadline, Sam physically struck me and walked out of the office, not returning back. Sam contacted her doctor after the meeting and was given a medical certificate claiming stress as the reason for her absence and given seven days’ leave. This was sent to, and received by, the organisation on the day following your meeting with Sam. Sam called and verified with the Human Resources department that the certificate had been filed within the organisation’s systems. Three days later, after conducting a meeting with the supervisor and the Human Resources department, the management came into the conclusion that Sam should be dismissed.
However, when Sam filed a case against the company, it was seen that There were no copies of signed agreements reviewing Sam’s progress (performance reviews and development plans) submitted by the employer. No written documents outlining that timelines were given for monitoring or reviewing Sam’s progress were submitted by the employer. There were no formal disciplinary hearings that had taken place prior to the dismissal of Sam. Sam was not formally stood down while an investigation was carried out. Also, there was no physical evidence to support the serious misconduct claim that the manager has been struck as no witnesses were called to verify whether an assault had taken place. No senior managers or human resource department specialists were present in any meeting where Sam was being warned of poor performance. Most importantly, there was no evidence to support the claim of misconduct by Sam. The manager had not documented any written warnings in Sam’s file. The only agreements that had been reached between Sam and the manager were verbal.
Reasons for Losing the Unfair Dismissal Case
The organisation should have been extra careful in the management and the human resources department in dealing with the termination and dismissal of Sam. The organisation should have gone about the dismissal of Sam in a systematic and official way. The agreements reached between Sam and the manager were verbal manager should have documented the written warning in the file of the dismissed employee. During the meeting, no senior managers or human resource department specialists were present in any meeting where Sam was being warned of poor performance. This gave Sam the required scope to file the case of unfair dismissal against the company. The presence of a senior manager or the specialists from the human resources department would have made things in favour of the company, as the managers could have warned Sam of her poor performance. There was no documented evidence of any meetings or coaching sessions had been kept by the employer. The presence of documented evidence of the meetings or coaching sessions would have given the evidential credit to the company. No impartial investigation was carried out. The lack of impartial investigation turned out to be harmful for the company as it resulted in the losing of the case on the part of the company. There were no records of any notes provided by the employer to back the claims that there had been meetings and reviews. The only written evidence produced was the termination letter. The existence of the notes claiming that meetings and reviews were conducted would have given the company an edge in the case. It would have been easier for the company to file a case based on this fact. The company would have been on to side of victory if these evidences were produced in the court. The company failed to follow a formal and strict disciplinary process to go about with the case. No performance management review or development plans were presented by the employer. The performance management review and development plans would have given the company adequate resources to take on the case and find victory. The presence of copies of signed agreements reviewing the progress of Sam (including performance reviews and development plans) would have helped the company in winning the case. The presence of written documents outlining that timelines were given for monitoring or reviewing her progress were submitted by the employer would have helped the company to show that it did its hundred per cent in following and adhering to the norms set by Fair Work Australia (FWA). There was the lack of physical evidence that indicated or implied any sort of misconduct. The presence of this evidence would have helped the company to win this case. Senior managers and specialists from the human resource department would have the company in fighting this case and also winning it. Some sort of evidence to support the claim of misconduct on the part of the dismissed employee was necessary. The organisation could have won the case had it followed the above mentioned steps.
Suggested Resolutions for Employee Issues
Unfair dismissal laws in Australia are covered in the Fair Work Act (2009). The company, Housefriends falls under the category of the Fair Work Act (FWA). Unfair dismissal laws, which are set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), apply to a large number of Australian employees and generally give those employees the broadest protection from having their employment terminated. Therefore a good starting point is to consider whether or not an employee is covered by unfair dismissal laws. Often when an employer is faced with information that suggests an employee may be guilty of serious misconduct; it is preferable that the employee in question is suspended while an investigation takes place. Taking this course is often advisable as if the employee has engaged in the alleged misconduct; it is prudent to remove the employee from the workplace. An employer does not have a general right to suspend employees unless they are permitted to do so under a workplace agreement or where the employee is not covered by an industrial instrument or by an express written clause in the employment contract. Typically, an employer will be able to suspend the employee pending an investigation into serious misconduct, provided that the employee is paid their normal remuneration during the suspension period. Suspension on full pay will normally be permitted, provided it is not for an unreasonable length of time. Any investigation carried out by an employer, whether or not the employee is suspended, should always be undertaken without any unnecessary delay.
Once the decision has been made to terminate the employee, the termination of the employment and the meeting leading up to it should be documented in writing. Unfair dismissal laws require that the employee be notified of the reasons for the dismissal. In any event, it is good practice to expressly state in writing the reasons for the dismissal, as well as the effective date of termination.
The company should seriously deal with the termination of its employees. The company should not be evasive or too general about the reasons for the dismissal of the employees. The FWA states that where a dismissal is due to serious and willful misconduct, an employee is not entitled to notice of termination or to a payment in lieu of notice in most circumstances. However, where a dismissal is not related to serious and willful misconduct, an employer needs to ensure that the employee receives the appropriate notice period or pay in lieu of notice. The employee will also need to be provided with any accrued entitlements that are payable on the ending of the employment, such as annual leave and long service leave.
Unfair Dismissal Laws in Australia
The company should therefore need to consider any obligations or processes set out in workplace agreements or workplace policies that may impact upon the dismissal of an employee. The company should bring in place the disciplinary processes that are to be followed prior to dismissing an employee. The company should follow a set of rules and norms to systematically and in a step by step fashion proceed with the dismissal of an employee. The company should abide by the rules set up by the FWA before dismissing an employee. The termination of an employee of the company should be handled in a systematic manner. Notice of termination may be given to an employee by delivering it personally, leaving it at the employee’s last known address or sending it in prepaid post to the employee’s last known address. The minimum period of notice does not apply where an employee is summarily dismissed for serious misconduct. Serious misconduct occurs where an employee is in serious breach of the obligations owed to his/her employer. At common law, examples of serious misconduct include dishonesty, assaulting a colleague or refusing to follow a fair and reasonable direction of the employer.
The organizational requirement of the termination of Sam: The Company should have abided by the FWA and a few of the norms in the organizational structure. Since the goal of the company is to be the major retailer in their sector, the company would have to follow the required steps to achieve just that. Tackling any misconduct on the part of any employee is ethically unsound. Therefore, appropriate and adequate measures have to be taken to deal with the dismissal of any employee of grounds that prove to be a violation of the rules and regulations of the company and the ethical guidelines.
Here, the write-up will analyze the alternate procedures that should have been used for this case against the company.
In the initial stage, the employer or the company should have followed a formal disciplinary process to go about with the termination. There should have been an impartial investigation that had to be carried out by the company. Records of notes provided by the employer showing that there had been meetings and reviews should have been there instead of just the termination letter that was provided by the company. The original version of the medical certificate should have been produced in the hearing by the company. Documented evidence of of any meetings or coaching session should have been kept by the employer. The company should have presented performance management review or development plans. The company should have presented copies of signed agreements that reviewed the progress of Sam. Documents outlining that timelines were given for monitoring or reviewing the progress of the dismissed employee should have been submitted by the company. Housefriends should have carried out disciplinary hearings that had taken place prior to the dismissal of the employee. The company should have had presented physical evidence to support the serious misconduct claim that the manager has been struck as no witnesses were called to verify whether an assault had taken place. Senior managers or human resource department specialists had to be present in the meeting where Sam was reprimanded for poor performance. Overall, the company did not provide any evidence to support the claim of the misconduct by Sam. The company should have presented the required documents and evidences that showed that there was misconduct on part of Sam in the organisation.
During this case, assistance and support from the HR specialists in certain areas would have been appropriate. The human resources specialists should have been present in the meetings where Sam was reprimanded of poor performance on her part in the company. The human resources specialists of the company should have made it clear when Sam produced the medical certificate that have been received by the company that the acceptance of the medical certificate was only on the grounds of the HR policy that the country practised.
If the support services are considered, then the
Appropriate documentation at each stage:
In this case appropriate documentation would have solved half the problem for the Australian company, Housefriends. The company should have presented suitable notes in order to the claims that there had been meetings and reviews. The only written evidence produced was the termination letter. The documented evidence of any meetings or coaching sessions that had been kept by the employer should have been produced. The original version of the medical certificate should have been produced in the hearing by the company.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
