Question: MINICASE: ACCT – 09 BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM ?1992 Arthur Andersen & Co

Question

Question: MINICASE: ACCT – 09 BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM ?1992 Arthur Andersen & Co, SC.

Damage Expense Topic:

Violations of Internal Control Characters: Chris, New Distribution Supervisor at a large candy manufacturer Bob, Inventory Control Manager, Chris’s immediate boss Chris has been recently hired as the Distribution Supervisor for an international candy company. The plant is in a rural area and is about to begin a major expansion that will triple its capacity. The company has generous benefits and has paid all moving expenses for Chris and his family. During the move, however, the movers damaged a large piece of oak furniture. Chris has contacted the moving company. The insurance is by the pound and would cover only a small part of the worth of the item. Chris has explained this to the moving company, but it refuses to reimburse him for the item’s value. Chris approaches his supervisor, Bob, about the problem. Chris has been on the job about a month and enjoys the partnership they have developed to date. Chris had originally interviewed with Bob, and Bob’s recommendation had been a major factor in Chris’s getting the job. Chris has found the types of challenges he was looking for in a new position and is already becoming a major player in planning for the new expansion. Bob tells Chris that he does not think he can do anything to persuade the moving company to reimburse Chris and suggests that Chris pad his next few expense reports to cover the cost. Chris is surprised at Bob’s suggestion, because thus far Bob has dealt with him in a very evenhanded manner and has appeared to have strong business ethical standards.

Author: Originally developed by Michael Forget, graduate student at Washington University, as a class project in “Ethical Decision Making.” Edited and submitted by Dr. Raymond L. Hilgert, Professor of Management and Industrial Relations, Washington

could you please help me to find several alternative that he could take with classyfing them as bad or good alternative and then pick up 2 alternative and discuss them clearly with explain them in details to express the decicion logically ?

Explanation / Answer

The above case study is supposed to be considered subjectively. In my opinion the following are the key considerations that Chris can make and the marking whether that option is good or bad is provided for ypur review.

Good decision options:

1. Chris can approach the HR department as the moving reimbursement usually comes under that departmental purview.

2. Chris can personally go and speak with the moving company manager with all details about the damage and see what can be negogiated.

Bad decision options:

1. Chris can go along with Bob's suggestion as he is going to be working along with Bob in the new company.

2. Chris can keep quite about the problem as he does not feel that anything can come out of arguing.

3. Chris can sue the moving company.

Kindly come up with a few options ofyour own based on the above. Looking at the scenario given above , the idea which you choose can be extrapolated further.

I will outline one of the alternatives and explain it below. You can do the same for any other alternative you choose.

Good alternative: Chris approaches the HR department.

Chris is a new recruit/hire for the company and has been assured of a good moving reimbursement which is written on his acceptance letter. This should be an assurance to him that if there are any issues that he faces while moving, then he can and actually should approach teh HR department to find out who handles employee moving programs. Once he confirms the correct department and reference, he can then follow up with the concerned contact by explaining his grievances.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.