Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Compose a 2500 words essay on Case Analysis and Recommendation. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... The issue started on 11 March 2008, when Shared refused to participat
Compose a 2500 words essay on Case Analysis and Recommendation. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages...
The issue started on 11 March 2008, when Shared refused to participate in a GSD sponsored event to attend to a family obligation. Haydar though, his direct supervisor, did not express objection of any sort but reported the matter to Sahib beyond Shared’s knowledge. For the following four weeks, Shared was denied of assignments upon Sahib’s instruction. Nevertheless, when he approached Haydar, Shared was advised not to get troubled by the setup. On 06 April 2008, Shared was summoned, without prior notice, to the office of the Employees Relations’ Head on account of the aforementioned recommendation. This was the only time Shared was informed of the presence of a disciplinary proceeding in which he is the main concern. Tasks in the Accompany Services department were assigned verbally, and partakers are chosen randomly by the division’s director. The same involve planning, arranging and executing detailed programs of visiting business delegations. The department also arranges for a number of other services including security escorts, transportation, and logistics. On the date in question, Shared was not notified of his supposed participation until a few hours before the event. Shared also explained that the red marks on his attendance record were duly sanctioned—notice of late appearance and leave of absence were filed properly. Further, he suggested verifying with his colleagues that he is always within the workplace the entire shift. Shared criticized the action taken by his superiors, and pointed out that he should have received a verbal or written warning before the case is even initiated. The Discipline and Grievance committee investigating Shared’s case knows that both Haydar and Sahib can be held legally responsible for such an unethical procedure. The action taken does not comply with the rules and regulations of the GSD and the Department of Civil Services. Even so, Shared does not want to impair his relationship with his superiors as this may directly impact conditions at work. On 20 April 2008, two separate meetings with Haydar and Sahib were requested by the chairman of the committee. Sahib turned down the request on grounds that the written recommendation was not his doing, while Haydar argued that he did not know about the existing organizational policies, and proposed that the case be terminated as if nothing happened. A case where the main problem is not accurately identified will not be resolved as a whole. There are always sub problems that coexist with the main problem. and at times, without thorough analysis, these are confused with the other. In effect, the proposals intended for resolution are subsequently regarded as ineffective when in fact it is the preliminary procedure that brought about the failure. From this scenario, it can be established that Shared has nearly been a victim of unethical disciplinary practices at work. There are several aspects in the company system that prove ineffectual, thus employees have low morale and do not display confidence in the administration.