Skill Builder 13-3 SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT 9 EDITION

Competitor Assessment (Group Activity)

Assemble teams of three to five members. Choose two well-known direct competitors (e.g., Jimmy Johns and Firehouse, Walgreen and CVS, and Walmart and Target), and using the Internet, finding information (articles, blogs, company websites, etc.) about each organization.

Instructions

1. Specifically, your team should identify and classify (feedforward, concurrent, and feedback) the different types of control systems each competitor utilizes.

2. Pick one form of control for each company and evaluate its effectiveness based on the characteristics of effective control systems presented in this chapter. What improvements could each company make?

3. Prepare and give a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation of your overall findings to the class.

1. The US is the only industrialized country that has not fully adopted the metric system. What do you think is the reason behind it? What impact does it have on the American economy? Should the US fully adopt the metric system?
2. Of the 10 materials handling principles discussed in this chapter, which two are most surprising to you? Why?
3. Why is it important that materials handling be aligned with an organization’s objectives, customers, and products?
4. Please use an example to explain what environmentally-friendly packaging mean? How should a firm adopt environmentally friendly packaging strategies?

It was late February, and Marsha Lloyd had just completed an important long-distance telephone call with Professor Fred Massie, head of the Department of Management at Central University. During the conversation, Marsha accepted an offer to move from her present position at Private University, located in the East, to Central in the Midwest as an assistant professor. Marsha and her husband, John, then shared the following thoughts:

Marsha: “Well, it’s final.”

John: “It’s been a difficult decision, but I know it will work out for the best.”

Marsha: “Yes, however, we are leaving many things we like here.”

John: “I know, but remember, Professor Massie is someone you respect a great deal, and he is offering you a challenge to come and introduce new courses at Central. Besides, he will surely be a pleasure to work for.”

Marsha: “John, we’re young, eager, and a little adventurous. There’s no reason we shouldn’t go.”

John: “We’re going, dear.”

Marsha Lloyd began the fall semester eagerly. The points discussed in her earlier conversations with Fred were now real challenges, and she was teaching new undergraduate and graduate courses in Central’s curriculum. Overall, the transition to Central had been pleasant. The nine faculty members were warm in welcoming her, and Marsha felt it would be good working with them. She also felt comfortable with the performance standards that appeared to exist in the department. Although it was certainly not a “publish or perish” situation, Fred had indicated during the recruiting process that research and publications would be given increasing weight along with teaching and service in future departmental decisions. This was consistent with Marsha’s personal belief that a professor should live up to each of these responsibilities. Although there was some conflict evident among the faculty over what weighting and standards should apply to these performance areas, she sensed some consensus that the multiple responsibilities should be respected.

It was April, and spring vacation time. Marsha was sitting at home reflecting upon her experiences to date at Central. She was pleased. Both she and John had adjusted very well to Midwestern life. Although there were things they both missed from their prior location, she was in an interesting new job and they found the rural environment of Central very satisfying. Marsha had also received positive student feedback on her fall semester courses, had presented two papers at a recent professional meeting, and had just been informed that two of her papers would be published by a journal. This was a good record, and she felt satisfied. She had been working hard, and it was paying off.

The spring semester ended, and Marsha was preoccupied. It was time, she thought, for an end of the year performance review by Fred Massie. This anticipation had been stimulated, in part, by a recent meeting of the College faculty in which the dean indicated that a 7% pay raise pool was now available for the coming year. He was encouraging department chairpersons to distribute this money differentially based on performance merit. Marsha had listened closely to the dean and liked what she heard. She felt this meant that Central was really trying to establish a performance-oriented reward system. Such a system was consistent with her personal philosophy and, indeed, she taught such reasoning in her courses.

Throughout May, Marsha kept expecting to have a conversation with Fred Massie on these topics. One day, the following memo appeared in her faculty mailbox.

Marsha read the memo with mixed emotions. Initially, she was upset that Fred had obviously made the pay raise decisions without having spoken first with her about her performance. Still, she felt good because she was sure to be one of those receiving a 9+% increase. “Now”, she mused to herself, “it will be good to sit down with Fred and discuss not only this past year’s efforts, but my plans for next year’s as well.”

Marsha was disappointed when Fred did not contact her for such a discussion. Furthermore, she found herself frequent involved in informal conversations with other faculty members who were speculating over who received the various pay increments.

One day Carla Block, a faculty colleague, came into Marsha’s office and said she had asked Fred about Marsha’s raise. She said that Marsha received a 7+% increase and also learned that the two 9+% increases had been given to senior faculty members. Marsha was incredulous. “It can’t be,” she thought. “I was a top performer this past year. My teaching and publications records are strong, and I feel I’ve been a positive force in the department.” She felt Carla could be mistaken and waited to talk the matter out with Fred.

A few days later another colleague reported to Marsha the results of a similar conversation with Fred. This time Marsha exploded internally. She felt she deserved just reward.

The next day Marsha received a computerized notice on her pay increment from the Accounting Office. Her raise was 7.2%. That night, after airing her feelings with John, Marsha telephoned Fred at home and arranged to meet with him the next day.

Fred Massie knocked on the door to Marsha’s office and entered. The greetings were cordial. Marsha began the conversation. “Fred, we’ve always been frank with one another, and now I’m concerned about my raise,” she said. “I thought I had a good year, but I understand that I’ve received just an average raise.” Fred Massie was a person who talked openly, and Marsha could trust him. He responded to Marsha in this way.

“Yes, Marsha, you are a top performer. I feel you have made great contributions to the department. The two 9+% raises went to correct ‘inequities’ that had built up over time for two senior people. I felt that since the money was available this year, I had a responsibility to make the adjustments. If we don’t consider them, you received one of the three top raises, and I consider any percentage differences between these three very superficial. I suppose I could have been more discriminating at the lower end of the distribution, but I can’t give zero increments. I know you had a good year. It’s what I expected when I hired you. You haven’t let me down. From your perspective, I know you feel you earned an ‘A’, and I agree. I gave you a ‘B-plus’. I hope you understand why.”

Marsha sympathized with Fred’s logic and felt good having spoken with him. Although she wasn’t happy, she understood Fred’s position. Her final comment to Fred was this: “You know, it’s not the absolute dollar value of the raise that hurts. It’s the sense of letdown. Recently, for example, I turned down an extensive consulting job that would have paid far more than the missing raise. I did so because I felt it would require too many days away from the office. I’m not sure my colleagues would make that choice.”

In the course of a casual summer conversation, Carla mentioned to Marsha that she had heard two of the faculty who had received 4+% raises had complained to Fred and the Dean. After lodging the complaints, they had received additional salary increments. “Oh, great,” Marsha responded to herself, “I thought I had put this thing to rest.”

About three weeks later, Marsha, Fred, Carla, and another colleague were in a meeting with the Dean. Although the meeting was on a separate matter, something was said which implied that Carla had also received an additional pay increment. Marsha confronted the Dean and learned that this was the case. Carla had protested to Fred and the Dean, and they had raised her pay on the justification that an historical salary inequity had been overlooked. Fred was visibly uncomfortable as a discussion ensued on how salary increments should be awarded and what had transpired in the department on this matter.

Fred eventually excused himself to attend another meeting. Marsha and the others continued to discuss the matter with the Dean, and the conversation became increasingly heated. Finally, they each rose to terminate the meeting. Marsha felt compelled to say one more thing: “It’s not that I’m not making enough money,” she said to the Dean, “but I just don’t feel I received my fair share, especially in terms of your own stated policy of rewarding faculty on the basis of performance merit.”

With that remark, Marsha left the meeting. As she walked down the hall to her office, she said to herself, “Next year there will be no turning down consulting jobs because of a misguided sense of departmental responsibility.”

Questions:

1. What is Marsha’s conflict management style, and how has it influenced events in this case?

2. What were Marsha’s goals, and what conflict management style would have worked best in helping her achieve them?

3. What is Fred’s conflict management style, and how has it influenced events in this case?

4. Once Marsha found out what her raise was to be, should she have attempted to appeal or negotiate a raise adjustment? If yes, what do you believe would the long-term consequences (if any) be of this tactic?

Managing Employee Benefits: A Discriminatory Time-Off Policy

As Karen Jarrod looked over her notes from the human resources (HR) compliance audit that she conducted at her new company, she decided she needed to take a closer look at the company’s time-off policies. Karen joined Staffon Consulting three months ago as the Director of Human Resources for the 1,500-employee company. Her first project in her new role was to review all of the company’s HR practices and policies to identify any legal compliance concerns. A report on the gender mix in the company’s workforce suggests she should take a closer look at some of the company’s policies. Karen’s report suggests some gender imbalance in positions throughout the company. The company essentially has three broad groups of employees: managers, consultants, and clerical staff. As the table below summarizes, overall, women represent nearly half of the company’s employees. However, women are poorly represented in both the manager and consultant categories. This is a concern to Karen because the manager and consultant categories are the higher-paying positions in the company and represent greater career opportunities. Only 20 percent of the managers are women, and only 32 percent of the consultants are women. However, women comprise 75 percent of the clerical staff. Karen notes that she needs to examine the company’s hiring, performance management, and promotion practices to make sure that those processes are free of bias or barriers that prevent more women from becoming managers or consultants. Gender Diversity at Staffon Consulting Position Men Women Total Manager 160 (80%) 40 (20%) 200 Consultant 476 (68%) 224 (32%) 700 Clerical Staff 150 (25%) 480 (75%) 600 Total 786 (51%) 744 (49%) 1500 As Karen notes the lack of gender diversity in these positions, she considers the impact beyond the potential problem of the disparate pay of women in the company. In starting to look at the impact, she notes that there may be a concern with the company’s time-off policies. The company has two policies for time off, one for employees who are classified as exempt workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and another for employees that are nonexempt. The time-off allocation for exempt workers is fairly generous. Exempt employees are eligible for two weeks of vacation each year upon hiring and three weeks of vacation after five years of service. Exempt employees also receive five personal days each year and may take sick days on an as-needed basis. Nonexempt employees receive one week of vacation each year after one year of service and two weeks of vacation after five years of service. Nonexempt employees receive two personal days each year and are limited to three sick days each year. Karen’s concern is that because the managers and consultants are exempt and the clerical staff is nonexempt, the company’s time-off policy may have adverse impact against women.

1. Do you think that women are underrepresented in Staffon’s workforce?

2. Do you think that Staffon’s time-off policy is discriminatory?

What is an example of when it would be beneficial to use a Subchapter S Corporation?

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behavior. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humor. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however, it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labor relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behavior. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package. THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principal offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanic's grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Questions

(3) Are there any Tort issues involved here? What other legal issues are involved here? Explain.

Managing Employee Benefits: A New Retirement Plan at Grinders Manufacturing Grinders Manufacturing faces some tough questions as the organization moves to expand operations. The 75-year old company, with more than 400 employees, produces machine parts, and a new market opportunity will allow the company to expand operations and build a new facility. While Grinders is a business that has endured the test of time, the company has faced many challenges over the past several decades. At one point in the mid 1960s, the company had more than 800 employees. A strong employee union at that time established competitive market pay rates and a generous benefits package that included a traditional defined benefit retirement plan. However, through the 1980s and 1990s, Grinders faced declining sales along with increasing expenses. The company laid off nearly half of its workforce, and while it maintained operations, the company continued to struggle. A frustrated workforce eventually voted to decertify the union, and the plant now remains union-free. However, things seem to be turning around as the new market opportunity for Grinders holds the promise to build back itsworkforce. As the company moves forward with its growth plans, Shane Meadow, Director of Human Resources, is examining all of the company’s HR management policies and practices to ensure that the company is prepared to meet the future challenges. Employee benefits are also under review, with the retirement plan under particular scrutiny as it is one of the most significant expenses for the company. Shane decides to begin his review by examining the company’s retirement plan to determine if the current plan is the most financially responsible plan for the company. The defined benefit retirement plan set in place through union negotiations years ago is available for all full-time employees. However, the company’s declining sales and unstable financial situation have made maintaining the plan challenging. The current plan uses a unit benefit formula that calculates each employee’s retirement benefit based on years of service and pay. With many long-term employees, the company makes significant contributions to the plan each year to ensure that the promised benefits will be available. In addition to the financial impact of the plan, Shane has noted that as he hires new staff, they find the plan complex to understand. Shane is considering transitioning to a defined contribution retirement plan, such as a Section 401(k) plan. His initial thoughts on this change are that the company would be better able to manage the plan financially, as the company contribution to the plan could be a profitsharing plan that would base the company’s contribution to the plan on company profits. He feels this would lower the company’s financial risk in supporting the retirement benefit. If it provided a profit-sharing plan as part of a Section 401(k) plan, it would ask employees to contribute to the plan as well. Shane believes that asking employees to invest in their own retirement will help employees understand the value of their retirement benefits. While the transition process of terminating the defined benefit plan and establishing a defined contribution plan would be complex, Shane believes at this point that it may be a good decision for the company in the long run. Further, the upcoming expansion plans provide a good opportunity to make such a change.

1. Based on the circumstances that Grinders Manufacturing is facing, do you think that Shane’s intention to move to a defined contribution plan is a good idea?

2. Who will the change benefit more, the company or the employees?

1.

Based on the following payoff table, answer the following:

The maximin strategy is:

Group of answer choices

A) Buy.

B) Rent.

C) Lease.

D) High.

E) Low.

2.

A manufacturing firm has three plants and wants to find the most efficient means of meeting the requirements of its four customers. The relevant information for the plants and customers, along with shipping costs in dollars per unit, are shown in the table below:

How many demand nodes are present in this problem?

Group of answer choices

A) 1

B) 2

C) 3

D) 4

E) 5

3.

A manufacturing firm has three plants and wants to find the most efficient means of meeting the requirements of its four customers. The relevant information for the plants and customers, along with shipping costs in dollars per unit, are shown in the table below:

How many arcs will the network have?

Group of answer choices

A) 3

B) 4

C) 7

D) 12

E) 15

4.

A manufacturing firm has three plants and wants to find the most efficient means of meeting the requirements of its four customers. The relevant information for the plants and customers, along with shipping costs in dollars per unit, are shown in the table below:

Note: This question requires Solver.

Formulate the problem in Solver and find the optimal solution. What is the optimal quantity to ship from Factory A to Customer 2?

Group of answer choices

A) 25 units

B) 50 units

C) 75 units

D) 100 units

E) 125 units

5.

A manufacturing firm has three plants and wants to find the most efficient means of meeting the requirements of its four customers. The relevant information for the plants and customers, along with shipping costs in dollars per unit, are shown in the table below:

Which type of network optimization problem is used to solve this problem?

Group of answer choices

A) Maximum-Cost Flow problem

B) Minimum-Cost Flow problem

C) Maximum Flow Problem

D) Minimum Flow Problem

E) Shortest Path Problem

Scenario
It is 2020, and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to 200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year. It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.

However, the downside is that during the transition time, GFC's Hover-Vee (only available in red or black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still being used, Hover-vee's will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about four times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC's marketing futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list which will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.

The Chief Engineer (CE) of GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because of collisions and crashes at high speeds -- projected annual death rates of 100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will flourish.

The U. S. Government gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who can own and operate Hover-vees. GFC's stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer takes the results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel (CLC), and together they agree to bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief Project Manager (CPM), who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and plans out the project for the company, with target dates and production deadlines.

Our class is a team of young lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides who are all part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In fact, according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following team:

• A-G: Attorney on the GFC team
• H-N: Project Manager on the GFC team
• 0-S: Engineer on the GFC team
• T-Z: Congressional Aide

Somebody sent a secret copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information in it at all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in accidents and deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CE, CLC, CPM, and your Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried this. Please save the world!

Each of you feel a very loyal tie to your boss and your company/country. You all have mortgages, and families to feed. It is likely if you blow the whistle on this report, you will lose your job and your livelihood. You're not even sure who wrote the study in your envelope or who actually sent it to you.

Address all of the following:

• Utilizing your profession's code of ethics, what would be your first step?
• Who would you talk to first?
• Would you go to the press?
• Would you go to your boss?
• Should you do anything at all?

Discuss the future challenges and opportunities in logistics management.

. Managing Employee Benefits: Cutting Benefits at Generals Construction As Generals Construction moves into its tenth year, the company’s future is promising. The company has continued to grow and profit, but the CEO has asked company leaders to examine expenses to ensure that the company is financially stable going forward. As the Director of Human Resources, Jane Smith is examining opportunities to cut employeerelated expenses while maintaining employee satisfaction and morale. However, Director of Finance Ann Lane is pushing some cost-cutting measures that Jane thinks may have a negative effect.

Generals Construction employs over 100 full-time construction workers and about 40 other workers that include construction supervisors, office staff, and management. Right now, all employees receive the same basic employee-benefits package, which includes a health insurance plan fully paid by the company and a generous vacation allowance. After 30 days of employment, all employees can enroll in the health plan and receive coverage for themselves and their families, and the company pays the full premium. New hires receive 5 vacation days, employees with one year of service receive 10 vacation days, and employees with three years of service receive 15 days. Finally, the company also provides a modest retirement plan benefit. The benefit offerings were determined when the company was started, before Jane joined the company. At the time, the CEO needed to hire nearly 50 workers in a short period of time to fulfill a new contract, and the attractiveness of the health insurance and vacation benefits in particular were instrumental in meeting the company’s recruitment goals. Ann suggests that the company make some significant changes to the benefits offerings in order to stabilize company finances for the future. While Jane agrees that the benefits that the company offers are fairly generous compared to those of competitors, she does not think the cuts Ann is suggesting are a good idea for the company. First, Ann wants some dramatic changes to the health insurance plan. Ann thinks the employees should bear more of the cost of the health insurance plan, including asking the employees to pay at least half of the cost of the premiums for individual coverage and the full premiums for family coverage. This shift would result in an increase of several hundred dollars in deductions from the biweekly pay of many employees. Ann also suggests a cut in the number of vacation days, but only for the construction workers. She thinks construction workers should receive 5 vacation days after one year and 10 vacation days after three years of service. However, she states that these cuts are not necessary for other workers, including the supervisors, office workers, and management. She argues that the vacation time for the construction workers is costing the company too much money because they must pay overtime and hire temporary workers to cover the absences. She notes that when others are absent, the same coverage is not required, and thus, it won’t cost the company anything to keep the same vacation allowance. While Jane understands that some reduction in employee benefits expenses is needed, she is concerned that the cuts Ann is recommending are too drastic and may be perceived as unfair. While she knows the employees will understand that they may have to contribute to their health insurance premium eventually, she thinks that the changes Ann is proposing are too much of a change at one time. Further, Jane has serious concerns with offering different vacation allowances for the front-line construction workers and the other employees. As she prepares to meet with the CEO to discuss reducing expenses, she needs to consider her response to Ann’s recommendations.

1. Does Jane have a valid concern?

2. What kind of changes could the company make to benefits to address Jane’s concerns?

Please examine and make an assessment on Ford's stock performance over the last 5 years compared to the auto industry? [200 words or more][Will give thumbs up]

Describe the sustainability management practices of a business firm with which you are familiar. Which stage of the corporate environmental responsibility model best fits this firm, and why? Looking again at this same firm, what steps might its managers take to improve its environmental performance? In answering this question, consider the various elements of effective environmental management.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behavior. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humor. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however, it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labor relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behavior. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package. THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principal offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanic's grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).

(4) Did the Ontario Labour Relation Board (OLRB) accept the defense that organizational culture contributed to the employee behavior? Explain their reasoning. Considering the company’s work environment, what factors need to be considered while updating the company’s health & safety policy?

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

1. Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?