Human Resource Management

Discuss the relationship between corporate human resources structure and operations at the plant level. What impact, if any, did that relationship have on the situation described by Newcombe?

After analysis of Mount Ridge Engineering's corporate human resource structure and plant operation procedures, in my opinion currently the relationships between human resource policies and actual plant operations are very weak. Although we can say that the human resource department has established a fairly complete set of procedures and policies, the actual implementation of the policies at plant level operations do not seem to be thorough enough. Especially, the staffing function is very weak. There is no proper linkage between corporate HR structure and operations at the plant level. It seemed there is no proper chain of command between them. The plant supervisor is carrying out the HR functions like hiring and firing employees which is in fact corporate HR department's sole function. Even in the termination form there is only Employee's signature and Plant supervisor's signature i.e. no control of the corporate HR department at all. The leave reason seems to be written by the supervisor not the employee, this is not logical. In fact, forcing a person for signing on the blank form of termination notice is completely illegal and against labor act (if the allegation of Johnson is true). This may create a big legal problem in future for Mount Ridge.

Here are the examples which show the fuzzy relationship between corporate human resource structure and operations at the plant level:

1. What Johnson had done was out of his job description or employee handbook: He helped out with the equipment operator's job, which is out of his job description, even after being unsatisfied. The standard promotion channel was not set up or Braxton didn't follow the system when doing evaluation. Hence Johnson couldn't get the promotion from Braxton.

2. Johnson didn't follow personnel regulations before taking leave: As Johnson was not satisfied with the annual evaluation he did not report to work without notifying his supervisor.

3. Braxton took advantage of his authority to terminate Johnson. Because on the termination letter his signature was enough to terminate him (while making Johnson to sign on the blank form, as per the allegation).

There are several causes for this situation:

1. Rapid expansion preventing proper dissemination of human resource policies.

2. Lack of comprehensive human resource training program.

3. Lack of proper human resource related internal controls.

4. Retention culture has not yet developed (to hire a new staff is more expensive than to retain the old staff).

Due to the above fuzzy relationship between corporate HR structure and operations at plant it has created a long term negative impact on the whole organization itself. As described by Newcombe, one of their biggest problems has been getting management-especially plant management to understand the legal and governmental regulations affecting HR procedures. Over the years there have been situations where supervisors have not followed company policy.

An example of this adverse impact is Johnson's case. Though Newcombe had already developed many benefit packages of human resource as company policies at the beginning, but nobody followed it. Such as, Johnson didn't notify his supervisor when he's absent, Braxton added the incorrect reason through the termination form for Johnson's leave, and the job Johnson did was out of employee handbook.

One of the important goals of the company is to remain nonunion. If such discrimination happens repeatedly at the plants, then definitely the company can get unionized. In the worst case the company can even get warning or punishment from department of labor, which will adversely affect the competitive advantage of the company.

How should Newcombe have handled this situation?

Newcombe should first investigate whether allegations made by Bud Johnson are true or not. A fair decision cannot be made without hearing from both parties in an unbiased manner. She needs to investigate if there were any friction between Braxton and Johnson. After investigations, if Johnson's allegation turned out to be right then necessary disciplinary actions should be taken against Braxton according to company's policy.

Following are some corrective measures to Newcombe to handle this situation:

1. Newcombe can set a training program for plant supervisors for better human resource practices and company policies since conducting a training program is cheaper than setting up a separate human resource department.

2. Take necessary action to retain Johnson by promoting him to equipment operator because Johnson is a quick learner, a competent and a responsible employee.

3. Re-design the termination process and procedure: She can also redesign employee termination form and conditions in the company policies as firing an employee for un-notified leave for a day seem too harsh. This also includes reviewing employee handbook as well.

4. Maintain a HR officer in each plant. If it is expensive, at least corporate office can train a person in each plant to look after the HR function and report to the corporate HR Department.

5. Setup an audit and supervising mechanism to monitor whether the company policies are properly implemented at the plant or not.

6. Setup a communication channel in the company so that the employees can directly file in their complaints at the plants.

7. Review the employee handbook and make sure that all managers know the employee handbook is a legal concern as well.

What, if any, disciplinary action should have been taken against the plant superintendent (Braxton) at the time of the incident?

First of all, before taking any disciplinary action Newcombe shall listen to the arguments of both Braxton and Johnson. To verify about their arguments, management can take interview of their respective colleagues and supervisors independently. Here all allegations made by Johnson may not be cent percent true. It is hard to believe that he had been asked by Braxton to sign a blank form and added the incorrect reason after he had signed the form. Its Johnson's fault as well if he signed on a blank form and be absent without any notification.