You are the human resources director for a company called Advertising Inflatables, which designs and builds the huge balloon replicas used for advertising atop retail stores, tire outlets, used-car lots, fast-food outlets, fitness clubs, etc. Since you started you’ve seen balloon re-creations of everything from a 50-foot King Kong to a “small” 10-foot pizza.
Not long ago, company management installed the “cyber-surveillance” software, Silent Watch, to track and record employees’ computer usage. At the time, you sent out an electronic memo informing all employees that they should limit their computer use and email to work projects only. You also informed them that their work would be monitored. At your boss’s request, you did not mention that Silent Watch would record every keystroke of their work or that they could be monitored from a screen in their manager’s office.
As expected, Silent Watch caught two of the sales staff spending between 50-70 percent of their time surfing Internet sites unrelated to their jobs. The company docked (withheld) their pay accordingly, without warning. Management sent them a memo notifying them that they were not fired, but were on probation. You considered this wise, because when they work, both employees are very good at what they do, and talent is hard to find. But now salesperson Jarod Harkington has sent you a letter demanding reinstatement of his pay and claiming he was “spied on illegally.”
On the contrary, company attorneys have assured management that the courts almost always side with employers on this issue, particularly after employees receive a warning such as the one you wrote. The computer equipment belongs to Advertising Inflatables, and employees are paid a fair price for their time.
Email To: Jarod Harkington, Sales Representative
From: Tyrone Mason, Human Resources Director
Date: August 3, 20XX
Subject: Pay reduction
Jarod, I believe my handling of this situation has been extremely generous, Jarod, so I will not be reinstating your pay. Many employers would have fired you immediately for spending so much work time on personal business. I admit that I was furious when I discovered how much personal time I was paying you for. But you’ve had a positive effect on our bottom line in the past, so I′m certainly willing to give you a second chance. You and your co-workers were warned in advance that your work would be monitored.
I sent each of you a memorandum with specific guidelines for Internet and e-mail use. And in that memo, I informed you all that your work would definitely be monitored. So as you can plainly see, any legal action on your part would be a waste of everyone′s time. I have consulted my attorneys, and they assure me that your legal recourse is without merit. Be sensible, Jarod. Don′t make me reconsider my decision to place you on probation. Isn’t half a paycheck better than none? Best, Tyrone
The email shows the lenient attitude of the Human Resources Director as he had various legally protected options to handle the situation. But choose to acknowledge the competitiveness of the employees and track record. It is a well known facts that employers can monitor their employees during their working hours and all the gadgets or electronic devices that rightfully belong to the employer even in off-hours. The email mentions that employees were previously informed that their activities will be monitored. And it is fair enough to hold employees accountable for the time they are fairly paid.
Case Study Solution
Effectiveness of the Email
The newly installed surveillance system identified two sales staff spending over 50% of their work hours on non-productive activities. The email demonstrates the Human Resources Director’s lenient and pragmatic approach in handling this breach of trust and professional conduct. While the company had legally protected options, including immediate termination, the director chose to acknowledge the employees’ competitiveness and previous contributions to the organization.
The employer has the right to monitor employees during work hours and the use of company-owned devices, even during off-hours. The surveillance system’s implementation was communicated in advance via an electronic memo, which explicitly stated that employee activities would be monitored. Employees were also advised to limit computer and internet usage to official purposes.
It is reasonable for an employer to hold employees accountable for their time, especially when they are compensated fairly. If violations occur, disciplinary actions such as probation or pay reductions are justified. In this case, the director’s decision to retain the employees instead of opting for immediate dismissal reflects a fair balance between accountability and the recognition of talent. By placing the employees on probation, the director offers them an opportunity to improve their productivity and regain their former standing within the organization.
However, instead of acknowledging their misconduct and apologizing, one employee, Jarod Harkington, threatened legal action against the company. This response not only avoids taking responsibility but could also be perceived as an attempt to deflect accountability. The employer responded decisively, outlining the lack of merit in Jarod’s claims and highlighting the consequences of further non-compliance.
By addressing the issue with firmness and professionalism, the director effectively communicates the gravity of the situation while providing the employee with a chance to retain their role and restore their reputation. The approach ensures both immediate accountability and the possibility of long-term productivity improvements, demonstrating sound human resources management.
