Individual Case Study Assignment: Employee Relations The Case Grant Davis runs the Waterloo, Ontario manufacturing facility of Insigne Knitwear, which is headquartered in Montreal. Despite being an experienced Plant Manager with a wealth of operational and financial experience, it is of limited help to him in dealing with three employee issues hes currently facing at the Waterloo facility. He could use some advice from the Human Resources Manager in Insignes Montreal head office, but his calls have brought him little assistance. Sometimes Grant thinks he should have learned to speak French when he started this job with Insigne Knitwear. The company has a very simple employee communications policy: What goes on at the company stays at the company. This policy was communicated regularly to all employees, but unfortunately, Johanne Martin, one of the plants employees has now violated it. A week ago, she was chatting with a co-worker, Francine DuBois, who had recently transferred to Waterloo from the Montreal head office. During their conversation, Francine confided to Johanne that she had accepted the move to Waterloo because she had been threatened with dismissal by her manager in Montreal for refusing his continued sexual advances on her. That situation was resolved when Francine agreed to make the move to the Waterloo facility. Upon hearing Francines story, Johanne was furious about what had happened to Francine, and immediately notified the Human Rights Commission in Ontario and the media in both Waterloo and Montreal. Grant is now struggling to decide how best to handle this situation. Marc Hebert is a 36 year old account executive who has been with Insigne Knitwear for seven years. Although based in Montreal, he travels across Canada regularly to call on his clients and prospects. While travelling, he often visits Insigne locations across the country to use their offices, equipment and services for the administrative parts of his job. Marc is considered a very good salesperson. He is well-known in the industry, highly involved in his professional association, and a visible member of charitable organizations in the Montreal area. Marc is married and has three children. About a month ago, Head Office started monitoring employees use of the companys Internet. Much to their surprise, they found that Marc had visited several pornographic websites on four different evenings while using an office at the Waterloo facility. The records revealed that he had spent an average of about 3 hours on each of the four evenings visiting such sites while using company property. His visits to these undesirable sites were made outside of regular work hours. The company had been providing Internet access to employees for years but had never developed or communicated any policy on Internet use by employees. Head Office expects Grant to deal with this issue since it happened at his location. As they say, problems come in threes. As Grant sat in his office thinking through what to do, his phone rang. It was Robert Charlebois from Head Office calling again to follow up on what Grant was going to do about Lou Bertolli. Lou is a 42 year old production supervisor in the F20 Das Adaptation: 11/22/20 Waterloo plant. He supervises 12 machine operators, has been with Insigne Knitwear for 11 years, and earns $61,000 a year. Lous performance evaluations are among the highest at the Waterloo facility and he is very well-liked by his staff and co-workers. He has been attending night school at Wilfred Laurier University and is two credits away from earning his degree. A month earlier, Lou went to Montreal to attend a 2-day training program for production supervisors. After the first day of sessions, Lou went out for dinner with two other warehouse supervisors from Insignes production plant in Moncton, New Brunswick. During the meal, the other two supervisors revealed to Lou a scheme they had developed in which they wrote off a small portion of their production as wastage, but they actually kept the products and sold them to friends at a discount. As one of the supervisors told Lou, Were not talking big money Lou, but Im sure you could also use an extra $200 to $250 a week. After all, were underpaid and our salaries are not even keeping up with inflation. They also told Lou about a new moneymaking scheme and asked if he was interested in joining their team. It appears that an overseas competitor was interested in mass-producing Insigne Knitwear designs; however, that company wanted more information about Insignes latest designs and production techniques. Under the new scheme, the production supervisors were going to get information for the overseas company in exchange for part-ownership in that business. Last week, Insigne Knitwears auditor uncovered the scheme. The two supervisors from Moncton were fired. While the audit confirmed that no other Insigne employees were involved, Lou and one other Insigne employee admitted knowing about the fraud. In Grants discussions with top management, the point was raised as to whether Lou had a duty to report the fraud. Again, Grant is expected to deal with this matter since Lou is one of his staff. Case Discussion Questions 1. Consider the three issues Grant needs to address. Which one should be addressed first? Last? Explain your reasoning. 2. How should Grant deal with the Johanne Martin incident? What suggestions would you make to improve Insigne Knitwears policy on communications? 3. What disciplinary action (if any) would you recommend Grant take with respect to the case involving Marc Hebert? 4. Develop a company policy for Insigne Knitwear on employee Internet usage. 5. Do you recommend that Lou Bertolli be dismissed? Is there just cause for dismissal? 6. What would be reasonable notice in the event that a court ruled that Insigne Knitwear did not have just cause to terminate Lou. Explain your answer. 7. If you were in Lou Bertollis position, would you have reported the schemes to Insignes senior management? Why and/or why not?