It was not unlawful for the HR to come across theinformation exposure in the public setting. Besides, accidentally the messagewas faltered upon in progress of supplementary occasions.
Ethically, each workshould operate towards the company benefit. Definitely, it articulates that thehuman resource should observe every ethical necessity. However, for wellbeingof the company the information builds a significant issue. As the HR directorthrough her own competence should embrace the message as intellect. In addition,the human resource director should find a superior means to convey the similarinformation to the appropriate team of the company that will react efficientlyto encounter the expected competition. Particularly, the most essential featureof a firm is associated to competitive benefit. Any information crucial to thecompany which may lead to reduce or improve recital should be addressed andlooked upon immediately. Human resource should therefore evaluate the companydepartment that the relevant scheduled change from the competing company couldaffect.
Secondly, the human resource director should ensure the capability ofthe work force in the particular department is well equipped to assist the firmcounteract the contending company move. Third, essentially HR director shouldperform an evaluation of the company personnel and carry on pertinent deeds to guaranteethat the company is adequately equipped to enact stipulated important changes. Wheneverthe incidence requires addition of human workforce, the human resource directoris however entitle with the duty to ensure efficient workforce for properperformance and counteract with the competitors. Generally, the HR’s role it tomake sure the acquired information is positively implemented for prevention ofthe company from hard competition which can intimidate the firm stability.
The factor of insider trading appears a predicamenton the other hand. Insider trading engages acquiring information illegally andthat one can benefit through taking the advantage of the company’s information.Possibly, insider trading happens at this case. An individual is guilty once heor she becomes aware of private or non-public information and goes further forits fundamental trade. This situation portrays a case of nepotism. Asthe department head, to which the applicant has been referred, I would takesteps in unity with the managerial set of laws, guidelines, and code ofconduct.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
The tasks of the human resource unit are to ensure that the most appropriateand competent recruits for the company are engaged and that all the ethical measuresand thresholds for enrollment are attained. Consequently, it is essential thatthe human resource director should observe justice and fairness. Eradicate conflictof interest, professional progress, ethical management, professional duties inthe 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 andfollowing the appropriate hiring procedure. I would advise the candidate tomake application to be considered for posted or un-posted positions.
I wouldalso put this on record by bringing it up with the professionalism and ethicscommittee, 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 ethicaland legal risks occasioned by the scenario; as it is quite evident that thereis an aspect of corruption in the recruitment of a favored candidate for anunposted position. As an HR director, my action, in this case, would entailensuring that the person referred for an unposted job is not awarded the positionwithout proper vetting. Also, I would ensure that the position is first postedand all people apply. This is because fairness and justice should be accordedto all who wish to be employed in a firm. The basis of elimination is usuallythrough merit. As such, fairness and justice demands that the organizationthrough the HR department realizes the intrinsic values of its employees.Secondly, it is essential that the HR department treats people with dignity aswell as the respect that they deserve.
Also, opportunities should be given onan 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 objectivedecision because of the existence of vested personal interests in a situation.Conflict of interests arises when a person in a position of decision-makingstands to realize personal gains from making a decision.
This action by thehead of HR is in complete contravention of the laws governing conflict of interestas well as fairness and justice in providing employment opportunities toemployees. Organizational codes of conduct, professionalism, and ethics,mandate or require affected individuals to declare any financial or otherwiseconflict of interest, and may or may not require such an individual to recusehimself or herself from the situation depending on the nature of thecircumstances. In the provided scenario, the human resources manager would notbe in a position to make an impartial and objective hiring decision because theindividual under consideration is a relative. Further, as the head ofdepartment, I have a personal relationship with the human resources manager andwould not be in a position to make an impartial hiring decision, withoutrunning the risk of engaging in favoritism. Solving this issue, the firm’sguide in relation to conflict of interest should be consulted so as to ensurethat the referred candidate is subjected to the official recruitment process sothat he or she is only accepted on the basis of merit. Regarding the evencontinuity of the company, it is also important that the head of HR, as well asother employees within the firm, refrain from bias as well as favoritism of anykind and form.The HR can be rightly accused of bias as well as corruption on the basisof conflict of interest for recommending his family member for a position whichhas not been posted and is therefore not subject to thorough and fair vettingprocess of recruitment.
As the HR director, my corporate responsibility entailsensuring that the head of HR follows the recruitment laws as established and setby the firm. It is also upon me as the HR director to ensure that the job isposted publicly to avoid instances of corruption. The head of HR is, in thiscase, acting unethically on insider information for his personal benefit or thebenefit of his family.
It is quite illegal for this to happen and therefore thehead of HR is out of line and should be corrected or warned of the actions thathe has taken regarding the vacant position on the basis of conflict ofinterest. As a government contractor, you are required andagree to have drug free workplaces, as a contract condition for award. Nevertheless,drug abuse testing or private information can lead a firm to lawful accountabilityregarding acts prevailing civil rights. Arbitrary drug testing in this case is incooperation unnecessary and unfair.
For employees or workers who aresatisfactorily performing their duties in the company, it is unreasonable to compelthem to prove their innocence as they are not even suspected of drug abuse. Thevarious tests are needless as they are unable to perceive mutilation and,therefore lack means develop worker’s capability to appraise job recital. Impairmentjobs recital can openly impinge on wellbeing of employees and, where workersperform their duties away from management, simple to employ investigation whichreally determine impairment are presented to the company. Accordingly, as drugtesting performance is officially authorized, can lead constitutional confrontswhen testing outcomes are erratically exposed, if measures used to obtain individualsamples disrespect the confidential rights of an individual, or when carryingout the tests excessively or unnecessarily is forced. Essentially, appropriate strategiesfor 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 firmconflict with the law enforcement agencies.
Resolving the matter efficiently, itis crucial to ensure the exercise of the drug test is performed under thelimits of the rules and regulation such that every company employee is equallysubjected to the tests hence avoiding bias or favoritism of some workers. Examination towards the matter of arbitrary and prejudiceddrug testing activities should comprise a variety of factors. Initially, the evaluationsshould request to establish whether there is reasonable suspicion to subjectthe seemingly the targeted group to random and unannounced drug testingsessions.
This can be done by lookingand investigating whether there are observable signs of drug use or abuse aswell as signs of violation of the workplace drug policy. The investigation willinclude the analysis and scrutiny of those suspected to be using drugs.Secondly, the investigations will focus on whether the random drug tests are inaccordance with the federal drug testing laws. In a random drug test at theworkplace, the law states that every member of the workforce should be involvedin the activity provided that they are employees of the firm. Conductingfrequent random drug tests on only selected groups within the firm can bringabout instances of stereotyping as well as discrimination based on the issue ofdrugs. The investigations will, therefore, include determining whether thetargeted group is indeed on the wrong side of the law or display such signs. The 1988 drug-free act is a United States Actwhich requires that federal grantees, as well as the contractor, provide adrug-free working environment for all employees. The risk is great if thecontractor does not comply.
Grantee or contractor that is not successful tocarry out the necessities of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 can be punishedin various ways: Payments for contract or suspense of the grant works, terminationof the contractor and prohibition of grantee, denial of any other grants or contracts.Being that the contractor is a government contractor, this means that thebusiness that the contractor is handling is on behalf of a federal agency. Inthis case, the drug-free workplace act applies. As such, it is important thatthe suspected employees are constantly placed under drug tests to ensure thatdrug use in the workplace is not experienced. Secondly, imperatively whencarrying out unsystematic drug tests, appropriate rules and regulations should befollowed to ensure every employee is subjected to the drug tests but not only afew selection. In addition, the study ensures that the targeted workers are discouragedfrom drug use all through working hours. Also, this exercise should ensure thatemployees who use drugs are either rehabilitated or dismissed from the firmdepending on the policies of the firm.
Finally, it is important that the testscomply with the federal laws and regulations that govern drug testing at theworkplace since the workplace, being a government contractor, should bedrug-free. The place of work should be a nonaligned placewhere there should be no religious or political bias in any form or manner. Inthis scenario, the worker or employee has broken the policies of the workplaceby bringing in religious aspects of their faith. Although the backroom accessis restricted to the employee only, it is important to note that the backroomis also part of the firm’s premises and consequently the religious quotesshould not be inscribed or placed in the desk area. It is unavoidable to letthe person keep the religious quotes at his desk area. This is because lettinghim have the religious aspects at his area will prompt other people who happento 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 iskept free of religious leanings and that religious debates and aspects bebanned within the workplace. The person has no other option but to remove thereligious quotes at his working area in a bid to keep the workplace areligiously neutral environment where issues of religion are not campaigned. The 1964 civil rights act was a landmark laborlaw that hunted to outlaw discrimination based on national origin, race, sex,color, and religion. Title VII’s of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibitsagainst disparate (different) treatment based on religion generally functionslike its prohibition against disparate treatment based on race, color, sex, ornational origin. Disparate treatment violates the statute whether thedifference is motivated by bias against or preference toward an applicant oremployee due to his religious beliefs, practices, or observances or lackthereof.In this case, however, the employee cannot file a lawsuit under thecivil rights act title VII of 1964 because there is no form of discriminationthat has been leveled against the employee based on religion. The employee,despite his religion, has been recruited and successfully employed for theposition which he holds regardless of his religion. The only problem is that itis prohibited to bring religious issues to the workplace and as such, theemployee is out of line regarding that policy.
Therefore, a lawsuit in thatregard will be inconsequential as well as irrelevant since there is no form ofdiscrimination expressed. Also, it is important to notice that all the otheremployees have not brought their religious ideologies to the workplace.Essentially, the employee should be encouraged to keep matters related to hisreligion personal and only restrict religious issues to his place of worship orat home as opposed to bringing them into the workplace. In this scenario, the manager might not have acase 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 sufficientlyprivate 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 forsomeone else to come into contact with the quotes being that no one can accessthe area in the first place. Secondly, it is important to note that everyemployee should have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a workspace where he or sheis comfortable and content. However,this should be in consideration of the rights and freedoms of other employeesin the workplace.The employee is not causing any disturbance or infringing onthe personal rights of other employees or even influencing the religiousbeliefs of others.
This is because the quotes are present at his disposal onlyand not for any other person.
