The DASAR Manufacturing Company is a material working flower under the direction of a grow manager who may be known as a tight disciplinarian. One day a honcho, chief, gaffer boss noticed Bhola, one of the staff, at the time-clock punching away two playing cards his individual and the credit card of Nathu, a other worker. Mainly because it was the regulation of the organization that each guy must hand techinque out his own credit card, the foreman asked Bhola to come with him to the Personnel Overseer, who viewed the occurrence as a direct violation of the rule and gave immediate notice of discharge to both employees.
Both the workers came to see the Workers Director for the following day. Nathu claimed innocence on the ground that he had not really asked for his card being punched and did not know at the time that it was being punched. He had been offered a ride with a friend who already completely punched and whom could not await him to go through the punch-out procedure.
Nathu was worried about his wife who was ill at home and was anxious to reach home as quickly as possible. He designed to take his card to the foreman the next morning intended for reinstatement, a provision occasionally exercised in such cases.
These circumstances were tested by Bhola. He stated that he previously punched Nathu’s card the same time frame he smacked his personal, not being aware of any wrongdoing. The Employees Director was inclined to think the story from the two guys but did not feel he could invert the actions taken. This individual recognized that these men were good workers and had very good records prior to this incident. Nevertheless, that were there violated a rule for which the charges was instant discharge. He also informed them it turned out the coverage of the company to impose the rules devoid of exception.
A number of days after the Personnel Director, the rose Manager, as well as the Sales Manager sat together at lunch break. The Sales Manager reported that having been faced with the necessity of notifying certainly one of their best clients that his order must be delayed as a result of liability of one department to conform to schedule. The department in question was your one from where the two workers had been dismissed. Not only got it been impossible to change these men to date, but disgruntlement over the incident had led to significant decrease in the co-operation of the other personnel.
The Employees Director and the Sales Manager took the position that the discha rge of those two beneficial men could have been avoided in the event there have been provision intended for onsidering the circumstances of the case. That they pointed out that the incident was costly to the business in the conceivable loss of a buyer, in the unhappiness within the employee group, and the time and money that could be involved in recruiting and schooling replacements.
The Plant Manager cannot agree with this time of look at. “We should have rules if we are to have got efficiency; plus the rules will be no god unless we impose them. Furthermore, if we start thinking about all these different versions in circumstances, we will find ourselves packed down with everybody thinking he is an exception. He admitted the grievances were frequent but countered together with the point that they could be of little effect if the agreement agreed to by union was followed to the letter