Question

Abc manufacturing the abc manufacturing company is a metal working plant under the direction of a plant manager who is known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman noticed Bhola, one of the workers, at the time-clock punching out two cards his own and the card of Nathu, a fellow worker. Since it was the rule of the company that each man must punch out his own card, the foreman asked Bhola to accompany him to the personnel director, who interpreted the incident as a direct violation of a rule and gave immediate notice of discharge to both workers. The two workers came to see the personnel director on the following day. Nathu claimed innocence on the ground that he had not asked for his card to be punched and did not know at the time that it was being punched. He had been offered a ride by a friend who had already punched out and who could not wait for 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 planned to take his card to the foreman the next morning for reinstatement, a provision sometimes exercised in such cases. These circumstances were verified by Bhola. He claimed that he had punched Nathu's card without his knowledge. What action should the personnel director take in this case?

Answer 1

The personnel director should consider the context behind Bhola and Nathu’s situation. Leniency and a warning can be extended considering Bhola’s intent to help and Nathu’s lack of involvement. A balanced approach between maintaining discipline and understanding personal emergencies could be warranted.

Step-by-step explanation:

The personnel director of ABC Manufacturing is faced with a decision regarding the incident involving workers Bhola and Nathu. Given that the rule of the company is clear that each worker must punch out their own card and assuming the director believes both the foreman's account and Bhola's and Nathu's explanations, the director could consider the context and intentions behind the rule violation. The actions taken by Bhola were done with the intention to help a coworker in a difficult situation, and Nathu was unaware of these actions being taken on his behalf.

If the personnel director is inclined to be lenient, they could extend a warning to both employees and reinstate them with the understanding that such conduct is not to be repeated. Alternatively, the director could uphold the decision to discharge Bhola for intentionally breaking the rule but reconsider the punishment of Nathu if it is clear that he genuinely did not partake in the rule violation. A balanced app

Answer 2

The personnel director should consider the circumstances and evidence provided by Nathu and Bhola. Reinstating Nathu would be fair, while disciplining Bhola for punching Nathu's card without his knowledge.

Step-by-step explanation:

The personnel director should carefully evaluate the circumstances of the case and make a fair and informed decision. In this situation, it is important to consider the evidence provided by Nathu and Bhola. Nathu claims innocence and explains that he did not ask for his card to be punched and was unaware of Bhola's actions. Bhola admits to punching Nathu's card without his knowledge.

The personnel director should consider the fact that Nathu had a valid reason for wanting to leave early due to his wife being ill. Additionally, the company rules were not explicitly violated by Nathu since he did not ask for his card to be punched. Therefore, it would be fair to reinstate Nathu while disciplining Bhola for his actions.