Case Analysis and Recommendation Research Paper

gaucherie Analysis and Recommendation - Research Paper ExampleThe issue started on 11 March 2008, when divided up refused to participate in a GSD sponsored event to attend to a family obligation. Haydar though, his direct supervisor, did not express protestation of any sort but reported the matter to Sahib beyond Shareds knowledge. For the following foursome weeks, Shared was denied of assignments upon Sahibs instruction. Nevertheless, when he approached Haydar, Shared was advised not to get troubled by the setup. On 06 April 2008, Shared was summoned, with let on prior notice, to the office of the Employees Relations Head on account of the aforementioned recommendation. This was the only period Shared was informed of the presence of a disciplinary proceeding in which he is the main concern. Tasks in the Ac confederacy Services department were assigned verbally, and partakers are chosen randomly by the divisions director. The same involve planning, arranging and executing detaile d 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 suppositional participation until a few hours before the event. Shared also explained that the red marks on his attendance record were duly sanctionednotice of late appearance and leave of absence were filed properly. Further, he suggested confirmatory 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 vitrine is even initiated. The Discipline and Grievance committee investigating Shareds case knows that both Haydar and Sahib squeeze out 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 division of Civil Servic es. Even so, Shared does not want to impair his relationship with his superiors as this may today impact conditions at work. On 20 April 2008, two separate meetings with Haydar and Sahib were requested by the chairman of the committee. Sahib glowering 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 unflinching 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 inefficient 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 pra ctices at work. There are several aspects in the company system that prove ineffectual, thus employees have low morale and do not display authority in the administration. The Civil Services Department asserts the existence of rules and regulat