Case Studies to Accompany
Noe, et al., Human Resource Management, 7th edition
by Alan J. Fazzari and Joseph B. Mosca,
MonmouthUniversity
West Long Branch, New Jersey
Copyright: 2009
Table of Contents:
TitlePage
An Arbitrator’s Dilemma: Bullying or Self-Preservation? 3
Sexual Harassment or Just Being a Friendly Co-Worker?33
Fire Me Why Don’t You?62
The Acquisition and the Role of Human Resources82
AN ARBITRATOR’S DILEMMA: BULLYING OR SELF-PRESERVATION ?
Objectives
Learn that bullying at work can and often does lead to negative consequences for those involved and other employees.
Describe the process and sequence of events that lead up to an arbitration hearing.
Understand that even with the best of intentions, an employee’s actions can be mis-interpreted by others due, in part, to biases and past experiences.
Identify the importance of gathering all the critical facts and data to management’s position prior to legal proceedings.
Understand the pros and cons of having empowered teams in the workplace.
INTRODUCTORY NOTES
According to Namie (2000), one in every five United States employees was bullied with repeated, deliberately harmful verbal abuse. A recent survey cited that more than half of the working American population has suffered or witnessed workplace bullying including verbal abuse, job sabotage, abuse of authority or destruction of workplace relationships (Cable, 2007). This equates to an estimated 54 million employees – 37 percent of US workers – have been bullied at some point in their work lives, while even more have witnessed acts of workplace bullying.
Workplace bullying is defined as a persistent pattern of negative acts directed at a worker (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Keashly, 1998), any form of harassment whether mental or physical, intentional or not, which is unwanted by the person at which it is aimed (Anonymous, 2006), or a form of interpersonal aggression or hostile, anti-social behavior in the workplace (LaVan & Martin, 2008). It may also involve incivility and aggression with the intention to cause humiliation and distress along with someone’s work being undermined and the individual belittled (Lee & Brotheridge, 2006).
To date, in the United States, there is no single, specific statute that governs workplace bullying (Mack, 2005), although ethically and morally it violates basic human and workplace principles. Specific studies of workplace bullying and ethnicity are rare (Lewis & Gunn, 2007). It was noted, however, in their research study a higher prevalence of bullying amongst non-White groups as compared to White groups with personalized bullying being the most prominent. When colleagues bully other colleagues the focus of the attack is first and foremost personal.
Unfortunately, as indicated by the Dignity at Work study into bullying, Human Resources has been reluctant to get involved in resolving conflict until it is absolutely necessary and that as a result bullying in the workplace is escalating (Fuller, 2006). The changing face of the Human Resource function itself, with many of the HR departments being centralized or moved off site, functions being outsourced, and HR becoming more strategic is contributing to the demise of the “people’s champion.” In addition to this, although there has been a steady decline of Union membership over the years (Dickens and Leonard, 1985), bargaining units by contract are for the most part obligated to defend their members when dismissed for alleged violence or bullying in the workplace.
Workplace bullying links itself with a lack of trust of management, a poor organizational climate, higher absenteeism and turnover rates, reduced productivity, anxiety, depression, and high litigation costs (Anonymous, 2008). Coaching, awareness, and training of workers, including management at all levels,in addition to a good solid no tolerance policy for bullying that is supported by labor and management is usually a good first step in adjusting employee’s attitudes towards other workers and their colleagues. Understanding the complex dynamics of bullying and aggressive behaviors in the workplace by Human Resources andits impact on the well-being of employees is necessary for proactive action regarding these dysfunctional and conflict-escalating behaviors on the job.
PROFILES
Diane Arnold has a high school education and has been at Wonder Life, Inc. for 12 years. Beginning her employment as an assembler, Diane learned the product and process through experience. She is presently the Supervisor (Advisor) of the electronic departments.
Michael Crowe has been with Wonder Life, Inc. for over 30 years having worked in the factory in almost every position on almost every product. Michael is a natural at handling conflict and guiding others to a win/win outcome. He serves as the Chief Union Steward at Wonder Life, Inc’s. contractual bargaining unit.
Juan Cruzis a very hard working Hispanic employee who supports the educational programs and teambuilding at Wonder Life, Inc. Juan serves as the team leader and liaison between management and employees who work in the electronics departments. Juan is married to Lisa Cruz, an employee (associate) in People Services.
Albert Donnely joined Wonder Life, Inc. 10 years ago as their Human Resource Manager. As the organization grew so did Albert’s responsibilities. Presently the Vice President of People Services, Albert and his team have been recognized on numerous occasions by the national, state, and local professional Human Resource associations for everything from innovation and creativity, workplace education, and best practices to economic development, best employer to work for, and Human Capital Business Leader.
Mark Howell is a manufacturing engineer and one of the creative geniuses behind the development of the new centralized packing process. Mark has been with Wonder Life for five years and is well respected by the rank and file.
Sam Jones is an African-American employee who works alongside of Juan Cruz in the electronics department. Sam is also a member of the contractual bargaining unit and began his employment approximately three years ago. Sam’s brother Gene Jones is the union steward for the paint shop areas.
Mary Kilmoreis the shop steward of the electronics areas. Mary is a long-term employee and has been in many positions prior to her present one as lead person on one of the assembly lines.
Mr. Lee is a retired Vice President of Human Resources from Lexicon Oil. Mr. Lee now spends his time consulting and also as a mediator and arbitrator for those organizations needing his services. He is registered with the State Department of Labor and the State Mediation and Arbitration Association/Board. Mr. Lee has only served in the capacity of anarbitrator for two years now which equates to three cases.
John Martin is Wonder Life, Inc.’s Vice President of Operations. John is a 30 year veteran of the organization and has facilitated many new processes and innovative ideas from Quality Circles to Just-In-Time Inventory. John has watched the company grow from a small $3 million in sales organization to its present revenue of $120 million.
Vincent O’Connolly is another lead person in the electronics department. Vincent’s people skills are much to be desired. His temper is volatile and his sarcasm is so prevalent while he is talking that many employees try to avoid any contact with him.
Victor Pastore is the plant director. No stranger to bargaining units, Victor has appeared during a few arbitration hearings in other organizations. Victor always wants to learn something new, and then try it on one of the assembly lines while looking for continuous improvements in process control. Victor has a no tolerance policy for almost all non-business like behaviors: excessive absenteeism, bullying, lateness, pilferage, etc.
Pedro, Lewis, Jose are three Hispanic employees who work in the shipping and receiving department of Wonder Life, Inc. Each one is a member of the bargaining unit and on average has been with the company for three years. Their performance has been stellar and their records indicate no incidents of reprimand.
Joan Rossi is a People Services employee serving mostly in an administrative assistant capacity.
Susan Wolfe, the People Services Manager of Wonder Life, Inc. joined the organization approximately two months before Albert Donnoly arrived. Together Susan and Albert created the department from the ground up. Susan is extremely competent in screening and recommending the right candidate for consideration at Wonder Life, Inc. This, plus her skills in employee relations continue to make the company an “Employer of Choice.
THE DAY BEGINS
At 6:45 AM the production lines of Wonder Life, Inc. were being set up by lead people. The normal routine had begun for the 7:00 AM start time. Department Supervisors, known as Advisors, were accessing the data base for their daily work schedules and production loading. The Vice President of People Services and Quality, Albert Donnelly, and the Vice President of Operations John Martin, walked the factory floor. They assisted wherever needed and greeted employees, referred to as associates, working on the ten productions lines, in the warehouse, paint shop, test engineering, quality assurance, shipping, receiving, and a myriad of other factory departments. Some small talk took place and went a long way in lifting everyone’s spirits. The first shift of Wonder Life, Inc.’s multi-shift manufacturing operation consisted of 225 direct labor associates represented by the International Brotherhood of Electronic Assemblers Union. The second shift had 80 additional direct labor associates. The relationship between management and labor was a good one. Years of working collaboratively to achieve harmony resulted in a motivated, dedicated, and loyal workforce. Efficiency, quality, and productivity were exceeding projections which translated into a healthy bottom line for Wonder Life, Inc.
WORKER INVOLEMENT TEAMS
For years Albert and his department led a journey to create worker involvement teams throughout the company. The model was most successful in manufacturing which resulted in upwards of 18 moderately self-directed work groups. These teams made most of the decisions for their departments. They would hold bi-weekly meetings to discuss production, product, quality, and other projects that were part of their goals and objectives. Some stellar members of each team would also become participants on broader based cross-functional teams. These cross-functional project teams created lists of cost saving, continuous improvement ideas through brainstorming sessions when their groups came together. They also met on a consistent basis in an effort to find solid solutions to challenges facing departments throughout Wonder Life, Inc. and its customers.
One such meeting had begun immediately following the start-up of the assembly lines. The topic was a summary discussion of a project that emanated from the strategic business plan; centralized packaging. Presently, each assembly line had it’s own “packers.” These packers were positioned at the end of each line. They would receive the assembled product, package it in an inner carton and place it on a nearby pallet. The pallet, when full, would be moved to another location in the plant. Product was then unloaded and additionally re-packed into an outer carton usually specified by the customer. This process was considered labor intensive and thus costly. (See Figure # 1).
As Wonder Life, Inc. sales continued to grow, additional resources were required; assembly lines, employees, equipment, and overall space. Unfortunately, space had become a rare commodity. A new addition to the building was being considered in the five year plan but that did not solve the present problems being faced. In spite of the overall lack of room, efficiency on the production floor was consistently improving except for on-time shipments. They held steady at a level of 96%. Customers were not expressing any concern at the moment but John knew it was only a matter of time before demand exceeded supply at Wonder Life, Inc. They needed to stay ahead of the curve and maintain high levels of customer satisfaction.
The new central packing system should help solve the problem with late shipments and space. It would relieve each assembly line of their “personal packers.” No longer would packers be solely dedicated to any of the ten lines. Several assembly lines employed two packers so the new plansshould free up close to 12 associates. They would be placed elsewhere in the factory. Some might actually become associates of the new Central Packing Team.
With central packing when the assembled product reached the final work station, the assembler would place the product in an inner carton and then on a conveyor system connected directly to his/her work station. This conveyor would take the inner carton to a central location in another part of the plant closer to the shipping dock. Pallets would be arranged to receive each line’s merchandise. The product would then be separated according to customer order, placed in it's proper outer carton, and set on a dedicated pallet for shipping. The project took the cross-functional team several months to complete. Initial savings of labor, including overhead, fixed, and other variable costs, were projected to be in excess of $1million in less than two years. (See Figure 2). A great deal of effort also went into creating the universal outer packaging materials that were an integral part of this process. It was not an easy task to develop one outer carton that would be aesthetic and yet practical enough to fit all sizes and shapes of products. The team did so, however, through a great deal of hard work and research. Customer focus groups gave the packages a “thumbs up” so Wonder Life, Inc. felt comfortable they were on the right path. In addition there would need to be changes to existing conveyor systems, loading capacity, scheduling of similar products during similar times, and training programs. The cross functional team that took hold of this new approach was excited to see it finally had all come together. See Figure # 2.
THE COMPANY
Wonder Life, Inc., a 75 year old privately owned manufacturing company is a leader in it’s market niche of developing life-safety systems for buildings. Wonder Life, Inc. has tough competitors with deep pockets. These companies had a majority of the market but Wonder Life’s 40% share was more than enough to keep them busy at their one factory on the east coast. Wonder Life enjoyed a steady long-term approach to pleasing its customers. It had built a very loyal customer base that continued to return because of Wonder Life’s attention to detail and quality assurance.
At the forefront of this success were the associates that worked there. People Services (Human Resources) has successfully led a charge to create a team based culture mostly throughout manufacturing. There were inroads being made throughout the remainder of the company but the focal point had been rank and file associates. The facility was multi-cultural and diverse. Associates attended on average 40 hours of various types of training and education each year. Teams participated in their department’s goal setting, did their own hiring, scheduling of production, became experts in total quality management techniques, and assisted research and development in the creation of new products. These tasks were just a few of the many processes undertaken by the teams in the factory. Value added opportunities were sought willingly by associates. These resulted in productivity and process savings of nearly three million dollars in the three years preceding the centralized packing system. The team philosophy was working very well by all measures of profit, job satisfaction, productivity, and customer delight. The teams also benefited by these savings through a variety of employee relations programs including profit sharing.
The cross-functional or departmental team meetings were commonplace. These were working meetings where either data was reviewed regarding goal attainment or new projects were discussed. After each meeting associates that represented their teams made an effort to pass along the information they gained to others who worked with them. It was common for associates to suggest and then create new and innovative ways to satisfy better the customer. It was common to witness one of these meetings taking place during any hour of the day.
THE CENTRAL PACKING TEAM MEETING
At the cross-functional meeting of the centralized packaging team, in attendance was Juan Cruz, the lead packer from one of the assembly lines, Mary Kilmore, a union steward, Vincent O’Connelly, the lead set-up, Diane Arnold, the supervisor (advisor), Victor Pastore, the director of manufacturing (coach), Mark Howell, manufacturing engineering representative, and John Martin, the Vice President of Operations.
During the meeting a summary of the new system proceeded without hitch. The team’s hard work over the last few months truly paid off. Everyone was pleased. Questions were easily responded to in an effort to work out any last minute details prior to communicating with others in the plant and office. There were no longer any concerns or bitterness that had been commonplace in the beginning of the project. Originally, the Union had expressed doubt about the new system mainly due to a feeling that layoffs might occur because of this new technique. Management assured the Union no one would loose their position due to the new packing method. In fact the organization was planning to hire over 20 additional production associates within the next few months to keep up with forecasted product demand. People Services adjusted the overall manpower plan in manufacturing recently because sales had been on a steady increase for three months now thus creating the need for additional labor. Everyone at the team meeting was satisfied. They agreed that within the week they would formally meet with their teams and explain the new system. A projected date of full implementation was approximately eight weeks in the future. Actions would now need to move quickly in the event anyone else outside the core team had input that resulted in changes. The various conveyor systems would now be ordered and sub-assembled off site. When ready they would be moved to the company and installed. The meeting ended with a brief celebration of donuts and coffee. Following the jubilation everyone went back to their work stations.