“ Ace Institute of Management ”
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Case: The New Director of Human Resources
EMBA Spring 2013(2nd Semester)
Raghbendra Kumar Shah Mr. Jayendra Rimal Roll: EMBA 16 HRM Instructor
Date of submission: 10th March 2014
Question-1: Discuss the relationship between corporate human resources structure and operations at the plant level. What impact, if any, did that relationship have on the situation described by Newcombe? Answer:
After thoroughly study of the case of Mount Ridge Engineering’s corporate human resource structure and plant operation procedures, we found current relationships between human resource policies and actual plant operations are very weak. Although we can say that the human resource department has established a fairly complete set of procedures and policies, the actual implementation of the policies at plant level operations do not seem to be thorough enough, no employee implement those rules. Especially, the staffing function is very weak. There is no proper linkage between corporate HR structure and operations at the plant level. In other word there is no chain of command kind of linkage between them. It seems that operations office can do the HR functions by themselves like hire and fire which is in fact corporate HR department’s sole function. Even in the termination form there is only Employee’s signature and Plant supervisor’s signature i.e. no control of the corporate HR department at all. The reason behind leave seems to be written by the supervisor not the employee, this is not logical. In fact, forcing a person for signing on the blank form of termination notice is completely illegal and against the labor act (if the allegation of Johnson is true). This may create a big legal problem in future. Here are the examples which show the indistinct relationship between corporate human resource structure and operations at the plant level: Johnson would like to have a promotion due to know a good deal about the equipment operator’s job. But seems the standard promotion channel was not set up or Braxton didn’t follow the system when doing evaluation. Hence Johnson did lots but still couldn’t get the promotion from Braxton. Johnson didn’t follow personnel regulations as Johnson was not satisfied with the annual evaluation, hence, he was absent without notifying his boss. Braxton took advantage of his authority to terminate Johnson as on the termination letter his signature was enough to terminate him. Considering most of the facts, several causes found for this situation, some of them are Rapid expansion preventing proper dissemination of human resource policies. Lack of comprehensive human resource training program.
Lack of proper human resource related internal controls.
Retention culture has not yet developed (to hire a new staff is more expensive than to retain the old staff).
Because of such relationship between corporate HR structure and operations at plant it has created a long term negative impact on the whole organization itself. As described by Newcobe, one of their biggest problems has been getting management-especially plant management to understand the legal and governmental regulations affecting HR procedures. Over the years there have been situations where supervisors have not followed company policy. An example of this adverse impact is Johnson’s case. Though Newcombe had already developed many benefit packages of human resource as company policies at the beginning, seems nobody followed. Such as, Johnson didn’t notify his supervisor when he’s absent, Braxton added the incorrect reason through the termination form for Johnson’s leave, and the job Johnson did was out of employee handbook.
One of the important goals of the company is to remain nonunion....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document