An Investigation of 3 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 0 Human Resource Management Answer to Question 1
Added on 2021-05-30
4 Pages545 Words335 Views
Running head: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
0
Human Resource Management
0
Human Resource Management
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMNT 1
Answer to Question 1.
As per the case discussed, firstly it is the policy and responsibility of every
organisation to initiate an investigation process in such a manner. Further, the employees are
also required to participate generously in the process. She was approached consistently
within the practices of the company. Therefore, court gave the judgement in the favour of the
employer. The employee raised the claims which are disclosure of the facts publicly and
trespass of the isolation. Regarding the disclosure of the claim publicly the court declared that
information of domestic violence was not showcased explicitly and was not intentionally
made it public (Barton, 2017). Any kind of disclosure was limited and was within the
boundaries of the policy. Secondly regarding the seclusion or isolation of the female worker,
the employee put forward the fact that she was constantly approached regarding her mental
and physical health, whether she required any medical help, and her relationship details with
that of the co-workers (Copeland & Henry, 2017). However after deep analysis the court
focused on the fact that the domestic violence was not of private nature as the news was
spread in the in the local press of the as a cover story. The similar ruling was given in the
case Rowe v. Guardian Automotive Products, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31296. Henceforth, the
incident was of great concern to the company and the questioning which was done was
relevant to that event.
Answer to Question 2.
The issue is difficult to analyse and evaluate. Generally there are certain acts which
prohibit the discrimination of employments on the basis of individuals with disabilities and
without disabilities. This shall not be criteria to define the jobs and to evaluate with regards to
the benchmark which governs performance and code of conduct (Yawar & Seuring, 2017).
Answer to Question 1.
As per the case discussed, firstly it is the policy and responsibility of every
organisation to initiate an investigation process in such a manner. Further, the employees are
also required to participate generously in the process. She was approached consistently
within the practices of the company. Therefore, court gave the judgement in the favour of the
employer. The employee raised the claims which are disclosure of the facts publicly and
trespass of the isolation. Regarding the disclosure of the claim publicly the court declared that
information of domestic violence was not showcased explicitly and was not intentionally
made it public (Barton, 2017). Any kind of disclosure was limited and was within the
boundaries of the policy. Secondly regarding the seclusion or isolation of the female worker,
the employee put forward the fact that she was constantly approached regarding her mental
and physical health, whether she required any medical help, and her relationship details with
that of the co-workers (Copeland & Henry, 2017). However after deep analysis the court
focused on the fact that the domestic violence was not of private nature as the news was
spread in the in the local press of the as a cover story. The similar ruling was given in the
case Rowe v. Guardian Automotive Products, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31296. Henceforth, the
incident was of great concern to the company and the questioning which was done was
relevant to that event.
Answer to Question 2.
The issue is difficult to analyse and evaluate. Generally there are certain acts which
prohibit the discrimination of employments on the basis of individuals with disabilities and
without disabilities. This shall not be criteria to define the jobs and to evaluate with regards to
the benchmark which governs performance and code of conduct (Yawar & Seuring, 2017).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.