tion BSRMGT605 Provide leadership across the organis Q3. Rel evant to the indust
ID: 346938 • Letter: T
Question
tion BSRMGT605 Provide leadership across the organis Q3. Rel evant to the industry that John is working in, identify different industry/professional networks and groups that he can participate in? TASK 3: Case Study Instructions to the candidate: Read the case study carefully and answer the following questions based on your understanding of the case study and the unit. Topic; Ethical decision making Martin Saunders, Assistant Manager noticed that the cash was coming up short every day or so. The cash had always balanced previously. The videotapes made by closed-circuit TV for the past veek revealed nothing Martin went to the Centre Manager, Jacinta Scott's office to report his findings from his investigation of the missing cash. He told her that he had studied the tapes and could not determine who was stealing the money but that only one employee, Lucy Jeffrey, had handled the banking in the timeframe. Although Martin knows that failing a lie-detector test cannot be used to dismiss Lucy, he points out that she was the only one to fail the test when asked if they stole the money Martin cannot close this investigation without a suspect; he proposes that Jacinta employee ook through Lucy's employment file to determine if there are any alternative reasons for firing this After diligent examination of Lucy's file, Jacinta notices that her application and sworn bonding form do not exactly reflect the same prior information such as previous employment. Under the company's rules, this may be grounds for termination; however, Jacinta never would have noticed it had it not been for Martin's zeal to pin the theft on Lucy cinta also recognizes that Martin's performance will be enhanced if he is able to catch an internal thief. Jacinta does not think it is fair to let Lucy continue working if she did steal the money; however, she feels that she is also innocent until proven guilty despite the circumstantial evidence Questions Q1. What are the relevant facts identified against Lucy? How would communicate the results of your investigation promptly and clearly to the relevant groups and individuals? Q2. What are the ethical issues? ©New England College Sydney Version 1.0: Jun 2016 Page 4Explanation / Answer
The relevant facts identified against Lucy are:
1. Lucy is the only employee to fail the lie-detector test.
2. During the period when money was stolen, only Lucy had handled the banking in that timeframe.
3. Lucy has a discrepancy in her sworn bond as compared to her application.
Post-investigation, I would prepare a memo or report and share it with all relevant groups. The report would include issue, steps taken to investigate the cause of the issue, evidence collected and end-result of the investigation. Also, the report would suggest the possible actions we can take as per bank policy and seek suggestions from the relevant stakeholders regarding possible actions that can be taken against the culprit. Lastly, I would call a general meeting of all employees and state the issue and actions bank was planning after they find evidence against the culprit.
B) The biggest ethical issue here is that there is no solid evidence to terminate Lucy. All the evidence is circumstantial. Further, there are a couple of possibilities:
1. Martin could not find any proof against anyone. So, he is pressing against a most probable culprit to get promotion.
2. Martin may be protecting the culprit and pinning the case on Lucy by simply trying to find reasons to get her terminated
From, Lucy's perspective, it has to be determined if having different details on her application and sworn bonding form is a genuine oversight or she has hidden facts about her to get an employment she did not deserve. It is possible she fudged her credentials to get into the bank.
c) The primary stakeholders in this case are Bank, Lucy and Martin (Investigator). Jacinta also becomes a stakeholder in the case once she is informed by Martin of his findings.
d) Jacinta should take the following two steps as alternative:
1. Martin or Jacinta cannot pin Lucy down for theft based on the current evidence. Jacinta must instruct Martin to continue his investigation and try to gather solid proof against Lucy. Further, she can ask Martin to take Lucy off duties that require to deal with money or put an overwatch on her activities. No action should be taken against Lucy with regards to money stolen from the bank till it is clear that she has done it.
2. Jacinta needs to check with Lucy on the discrepancies in his application and sworn bonding form. If it is genuine oversight, then Jacinta needs to get it corrected. If Jacinta perceieves that it has been done by Lucy intentionally, Jacinta must take appropriate steps agains Lucy including termination.
e) Both the alternatives are ethical. In the first alternative, we are not insisting on an action for the sake of it or for a personal gain. We are trying to find enough evidence against a probable culprit. In the second option, though Jacinta wouldn't have noticed the issues in Lucy's application if Martin had not pressed on it, however, it is now imperative for Jacinta to get the discrepancy resolved by discussing with Lucy. Jacinta cannot overlook this discrepancy and needs to follow the procedures and policies of the Bank. There is nothing unethical about it. Please note if Lucy's mistakes are genuine and there is an option to correct it, however, Jacinta gets her terminated for this on the pretext that all circumstantial evidence points at her to be a thief.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.