Sticky Fingers Case Study

HR Communication Case Problem Paper

HR Communication Case Problem Paper

1. Problem/Situation Definition

The case study we are analyzing involves a department store which experienced theft of a diamond studded watch. The people involved in the case are Susan, the HR Manager of the department store, Mike, a Loss Prevention Manager and Todd, a Salesman.  Todd was the only person stated to have held the watch on the day it went missing.  There are many ethical issues surrounding the problem.  

The symptoms to the problem are that Mike the Loss Prevention Manager has established his own views and made his own judgment on what happened.  In addition, Mike gains from a performance standpoint from his ability to catch internal thieves.  Mike also can not close the case without a suspect.  

1. Justification for Problem Definition

The facts are that theft has already been determined to be internal.  There was not any visual evidence of any employee stealing the watch.  The day the watch went missing, it was handled by only one employee who was the Salesman named Todd.  Todd has failed a lie detector test.  In reviewing Todd’s employment file at the recommendation of the Loss Prevention Manager, Susan, the HR Manager has noticed discrepancies.           However, she would not have noticed the discrepancies without the other facts. 

        III.        Alternative Courses of Action (Options)

        Option 1 – One option would be to fire Todd based on the inaccuracies in his employment application and bonding form.

        Option 2 – Option three would be to discuss the situation with Todd and ask him about the discrepancies in his application and bonding form.  Get his side of the story.  Using that information, make a decision.  

Option 3 – Hire an independent investigator that is neutral and can make an unbiased decision.  

        IV.        Evaluate Alternatives (Options)

        Option 1 – One option would be to fire Todd based on the inaccuracies in his employment application and bonding form.  Without concrete proof of theft, even with strong circumstantial evidence, the company may choose to terminate Todd based on the inaccuracies in his application and bonding form.  

In the case Busch v. Wal-Mart Stores “Andrew Busch filled out his employment application he left blank the section on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) authorization form that had the heading “Criminal Convictions”.  Andrew Busch failed to disclose that he had plead guilty to a misdemeanor for not filing federal taxes.  Wal-Mart received an anonymous tip from another employee about this and terminated Busch.  Busch fought the discharge stating he failed to disclose this due to ADHD and it was not intentional.  The court ruled with Wal-Mart stating “Mr. Busch offers excuses for his failure to disclose his criminal misdemeanor” (Smith, 2104, p. 1) The court also added that “it is not the court’s role to engage in second-guessing Wal-Mart’s business decision to terminate Mr. Busch for an otherwise legitimate reason”(Smith, 2014, p.1).  

        The company could terminate Todd based on his inaccuracies and use this case law as reference if needed.  The choice to terminate Todd should be carefully weighed against several things such as procedural justice.  Procedural justice refers to the perceptions about fairness in the process used to determine outcomes.  (Jackson, Schuler, & Werner, 2012, p. 79).  The HR practices within an organization “give employees the confidence that they will be treated well” (Jackson et al., 2012, p. 79).  In this case, Todd’s situation needs to be treated fairly but it is also extremely important to ensure that the other stakeholders are also protected.  The company has a responsibility to protect its stakeholders who can benefit from the success of the company and “can be harmed by it failures and mistakes” (Jackson et al., 2012, p.4).  Holding onto dishonest employees will have a negative impact on the company financially and from an employee engagement and satisfaction perspective.  The cost of keeping Todd as an employee could far outweigh the cost of terminating him, even if he were to fight it.  

        Option 2 – Option two would be to discuss the situation with Todd and ask him about the discrepancies in his application and bonding form.  It is important to get his side of the story.  Using that information, make a decision. 

        This option is important regardless of the decision to move forward either way.  The case study didn’t address this so I am assuming nobody has talked to Todd about the discrepancies.  Hopefully they have already discussed the theft with him.  If not, they should investigate both.