It Any information crucial to the company

It was not unlawful for the HR to come across the
information exposure in the public setting. Besides, accidentally the message
was faltered upon in progress of supplementary occasions. Ethically, each work
should operate towards the company benefit. Definitely, it articulates that the
human resource should observe every ethical necessity. However, for wellbeing
of the company the information builds a significant issue. As the HR director
through her own competence should embrace the message as intellect. In addition,
the human resource director should find a superior means to convey the similar
information to the appropriate team of the company that will react efficiently
to encounter the expected competition. Particularly, the most essential feature
of a firm is associated to competitive benefit. Any information crucial to the
company which may lead to reduce or improve recital should be addressed and
looked upon immediately. Human resource should therefore evaluate the company
department that the relevant scheduled change from the competing company could
affect. Secondly, the human resource director should ensure the capability of
the work force in the particular department is well equipped to assist the firm
counteract the contending company move. Third, essentially HR director should
perform an evaluation of the company personnel and carry on pertinent deeds to guarantee
that the company is adequately equipped to enact stipulated important changes. Whenever
the incidence requires addition of human workforce, the human resource director
is however entitle with the duty to ensure efficient workforce for proper
performance and counteract with the competitors. Generally, the HR’s role it to
make sure the acquired information is positively implemented for prevention of
the company from hard competition which can intimidate the firm stability.

 

The factor of insider trading appears a predicament
on the other hand. Insider trading engages acquiring information illegally and
that one can benefit through taking the advantage of the company’s information.
Possibly, insider trading happens at this case. An individual is guilty once he
or she becomes aware of private or non-public information and goes further for
its fundamental trade.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

This situation portrays a case of nepotism. As
the department head, to which the applicant has been referred, I would take
steps in unity with the managerial set of laws, guidelines, and code of
conduct. The tasks of the human resource unit are to ensure that the most appropriate
and competent recruits for the company are engaged and that all the ethical measures
and thresholds for enrollment are attained. Consequently, it is essential that
the human resource director should observe justice and fairness. Eradicate conflict
of interest, professional progress, ethical management, professional duties in
the exercise of information. Based on this rationale, I would not consider the referred;
the HR’s relative for the unadvertised job if not for grounds of merit and
following the appropriate hiring procedure. I would advise the candidate to
make application to be considered for posted or un-posted positions. I would
also put this on record by bringing it up with the professionalism and ethics
committee, which in most cases is mandated to handle issues of the same nature.
My actions as described above would protect I and the organization from the ethical
and legal risks occasioned by the scenario; as it is quite evident that there
is an aspect of corruption in the recruitment of a favored candidate for an
unposted position. As an HR director, my action, in this case, would entail
ensuring that the person referred for an unposted job is not awarded the position
without proper vetting. Also, I would ensure that the position is first posted
and all people apply. This is because fairness and justice should be accorded
to all who wish to be employed in a firm. The basis of elimination is usually
through merit. As such, fairness and justice demands that the organization
through the HR department realizes the intrinsic values of its employees.
Secondly, it is essential that the HR department treats people with dignity as
well as the respect that they deserve. Also, opportunities should be given on
an equal platform such that no one is favored by the process or the system.

 

A conflict of interest arises where a person,
acting in his or her official capacity, is hindered from making an objective
decision because of the existence of vested personal interests in a situation.
Conflict of interests arises when a person in a position of decision-making
stands to realize personal gains from making a decision. This action by the
head of HR is in complete contravention of the laws governing conflict of interest
as well as fairness and justice in providing employment opportunities to
employees. Organizational codes of conduct, professionalism, and ethics,
mandate or require affected individuals to declare any financial or otherwise
conflict of interest, and may or may not require such an individual to recuse
himself or herself from the situation depending on the nature of the
circumstances. In the provided scenario, the human resources manager would not
be in a position to make an impartial and objective hiring decision because the
individual under consideration is a relative. Further, as the head of
department, I have a personal relationship with the human resources manager and
would not be in a position to make an impartial hiring decision, without
running the risk of engaging in favoritism. Solving this issue, the firm’s
guide in relation to conflict of interest should be consulted so as to ensure
that the referred candidate is subjected to the official recruitment process so
that he or she is only accepted on the basis of merit. Regarding the even
continuity of the company, it is also important that the head of HR, as well as
other employees within the firm, refrain from bias as well as favoritism of any
kind and form.

The HR can be rightly accused of bias as well as corruption on the basis
of conflict of interest for recommending his family member for a position which
has not been posted and is therefore not subject to thorough and fair vetting
process of recruitment. As the HR director, my corporate responsibility entails
ensuring that the head of HR follows the recruitment laws as established and set
by the firm. It is also upon me as the HR director to ensure that the job is
posted publicly to avoid instances of corruption. The head of HR is, in this
case, acting unethically on insider information for his personal benefit or the
benefit of his family. It is quite illegal for this to happen and therefore the
head of HR is out of line and should be corrected or warned of the actions that
he has taken regarding the vacant position on the basis of conflict of
interest.

 

As a government contractor, you are required and
agree to have drug free workplaces, as a contract condition for award. Nevertheless,
drug abuse testing or private information can lead a firm to lawful accountability
regarding acts prevailing civil rights. Arbitrary drug testing in this case is in
cooperation unnecessary and unfair. For employees or workers who are
satisfactorily performing their duties in the company, it is unreasonable to compel
them to prove their innocence as they are not even suspected of drug abuse. The
various tests are needless as they are unable to perceive mutilation and,
therefore lack means develop worker’s capability to appraise job recital. Impairment
jobs recital can openly impinge on wellbeing of employees and, where workers
perform their duties away from management, simple to employ investigation which
really determine impairment are presented to the company. Accordingly, as drug
testing performance is officially authorized, can lead constitutional confronts
when testing outcomes are erratically exposed, if measures used to obtain individual
samples disrespect the confidential rights of an individual, or when carrying
out the tests excessively or unnecessarily is forced. Essentially, appropriate strategies
for the reason of outstanding on the safe side of the law must matter in the occasion.
Similarly, examining and resolving the issues instantly helps keep of the firm
conflict with the law enforcement agencies. Resolving the matter efficiently, it
is crucial to ensure the exercise of the drug test is performed under the
limits of the rules and regulation such that every company employee is equally
subjected to the tests hence avoiding bias or favoritism of some workers.

 

Examination towards the matter of arbitrary and prejudiced
drug testing activities should comprise a variety of factors. Initially, the evaluations
should request to establish whether there is reasonable suspicion to subject
the seemingly the targeted group to random and unannounced drug testing
sessions.  This can be done by looking
and investigating whether there are observable signs of drug use or abuse as
well as signs of violation of the workplace drug policy. The investigation will
include the analysis and scrutiny of those suspected to be using drugs.
Secondly, the investigations will focus on whether the random drug tests are in
accordance with the federal drug testing laws. In a random drug test at the
workplace, the law states that every member of the workforce should be involved
in the activity provided that they are employees of the firm. Conducting
frequent random drug tests on only selected groups within the firm can bring
about instances of stereotyping as well as discrimination based on the issue of
drugs. The investigations will, therefore, include determining whether the
targeted group is indeed on the wrong side of the law or display such signs.

 

The 1988 drug-free act is a United States Act
which requires that federal grantees, as well as the contractor, provide a
drug-free working environment for all employees. The risk is great if the
contractor does not comply. Grantee or contractor that is not successful to
carry out the necessities of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 can be punished
in various ways: Payments for contract or suspense of the grant works, termination
of the contractor and prohibition of grantee, denial of any other grants or contracts.
Being that the contractor is a government contractor, this means that the
business that the contractor is handling is on behalf of a federal agency. In
this case, the drug-free workplace act applies. As such, it is important that
the suspected employees are constantly placed under drug tests to ensure that
drug use in the workplace is not experienced. Secondly, imperatively when
carrying out unsystematic drug tests, appropriate rules and regulations should be
followed to ensure every employee is subjected to the drug tests but not only a
few selection. In addition, the study ensures that the targeted workers are discouraged
from drug use all through working hours. Also, this exercise should ensure that
employees who use drugs are either rehabilitated or dismissed from the firm
depending on the policies of the firm. Finally, it is important that the tests
comply with the federal laws and regulations that govern drug testing at the
workplace since the workplace, being a government contractor, should be
drug-free.

 

The place of work should be a nonaligned place
where there should be no religious or political bias in any form or manner. In
this scenario, the worker or employee has broken the policies of the workplace
by bringing in religious aspects of their faith. Although the backroom access
is restricted to the employee only, it is important to note that the backroom
is also part of the firm’s premises and consequently the religious quotes
should not be inscribed or placed in the desk area. It is unavoidable to let
the person keep the religious quotes at his desk area. This is because letting
him have the religious aspects at his area will prompt other people who happen
to notice this to have their own religious quotes placed in their working area.
Since religion is a sensitive subject, it is important that the workplace is
kept free of religious leanings and that religious debates and aspects be
banned within the workplace. The person has no other option but to remove the
religious quotes at his working area in a bid to keep the workplace a
religiously neutral environment where issues of religion are not campaigned.

The 1964 civil rights act was a landmark labor
law that hunted to outlaw discrimination based on national origin, race, sex,
color, and religion. Title VII’s of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
against disparate (different) treatment based on religion generally functions
like its prohibition against disparate treatment based on race, color, sex, or
national origin. Disparate treatment violates the statute whether the
difference is motivated by bias against or preference toward an applicant or
employee due to his religious beliefs, practices, or observances or lack
thereof.In this case, however, the employee cannot file a lawsuit under the
civil rights act title VII of 1964 because there is no form of discrimination
that has been leveled against the employee based on religion. The employee,
despite his religion, has been recruited and successfully employed for the
position which he holds regardless of his religion. The only problem is that it
is prohibited to bring religious issues to the workplace and as such, the
employee is out of line regarding that policy. Therefore, a lawsuit in that
regard will be inconsequential as well as irrelevant since there is no form of
discrimination expressed. Also, it is important to notice that all the other
employees have not brought their religious ideologies to the workplace.
Essentially, the employee should be encouraged to keep matters related to his
religion personal and only restrict religious issues to his place of worship or
at home as opposed to bringing them into the workplace.

 

In this scenario, the manager might not have a
case for making the employee take the quotes down from his working area.
Notably, because the quote is in the employee’s desk area and is sufficiently
private such that no one else apart from the employee has access to the place.
This makes the place private in the sense that it would be impossible for
someone else to come into contact with the quotes being that no one can access
the area in the first place. Secondly, it is important to note that every
employee should have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a workspace where he or she
is comfortable and content.  However,
this should be in consideration of the rights and freedoms of other employees
in the workplace.The employee is not causing any disturbance or infringing on
the personal rights of other employees or even influencing the religious
beliefs of others. This is because the quotes are present at his disposal only
and not for any other person.

 

x

Hi!
I'm Joan!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out