A Secretary Worked For A Vice President Of An Insurance Comp

A Secretary Worked For A Vice President Of An Insurance Company For Si

A secretary worked for a vice president of an insurance company for six years. While her work was adequate, it was not exceptional. The vice president was responsible for signing the secretary’s time sheets, and he had full authority to hire and fire his secretary. As a rule, the secretary filled out her own time sheets for the vice president to sign, which he normally did without specifically reviewing them. One day, however, the vice president was contacted by a representative of the Human Resources Department, who inquired whether the vice president had authorized the large amount of overtime his secretary had included on her time sheets.

The overtime amounted to more than $5,000 in pay. The vice president had not authorized the overtime, and in fact, doubted whether the secretary even worked the overtime. When confronted by the vice president, the secretary admitted that she had not in fact worked the overtime but put down the overtime on her time sheets because she had severe financial problems and needed the money.

The company had paid out $5,000 in overtime that was not actually worked. The secretary could be terminated for falsifying the time sheets, but another secretary would have to be hired and trained.

Paper For Above instruction

As the HR Manager faced with this ethical dilemma, the decision regarding how to handle the secretary’s misconduct must balance fairness, accountability, and the best interest of the company. The options available—firing the secretary, permitting resignation without repayment, or placing her on strict probation with a repayment agreement—each carry distinct implications for the organization’s ethical standards, employee morale, and legal considerations.

Option 1: Terminate the Secretary

The immediate action could be to terminate the secretary for falsifying her time sheets. This approach emphasizes the company’s stance against dishonesty and reinforces ethical standards within the organization. Firing the secretary would serve as a deterrent to other employees contemplating similar misconduct. However, this action might be viewed as overly harsh given her long service of six years and her admitted financial difficulties. The company might also face legal challenges if the termination is not handled properly, especially considering her lengthy tenure and the nature of her misconduct.

Option 2: Allow Resignation and Waive Repayment

Another approach would be to allow the secretary to resign voluntarily, thus avoiding the legal and reputational risks associated with termination. This option provides her an opportunity to leave with dignity, especially since her misconduct was motivated by severe financial hardship rather than malicious intent. The company could decide not to require her to repay the $5,000, but this might raise concerns among employees about the enforcement of rules and consistency in disciplinary actions.

Option 3: Probation with Repayment Agreement

A third approach entails placing the secretary on strict probation with the condition that she sign a promissory note to repay the company the $5,000. This option recognizes her misconduct but also considers her long service and acknowledges her financial difficulties. Implementing a repayment plan can serve as both punitive and restorative, holding her accountable while offering a chance for redemption. It emphasizes fairness and gives her an opportunity to rectify her mistake, potentially preserving her employment and mitigating morale issues among staff.

Preferred Approach and Rationale

Considering the circumstances, the most balanced and ethically sound option is to place the secretary on strict probation with a repayment agreement. This approach demonstrates the company’s commitment to integrity and accountability while recognizing her long service and financial distress. It provides an opportunity for her to take responsibility and make restitution, aligning with principles of restorative justice and fairness. Additionally, this option minimizes the risk of legal repercussions and maintains organizational morale by applying consistent standards.

Furthermore, the company should implement support programs, such as financial counseling, to assist employees facing hardship, demonstrating a compassionate organizational culture. Clear communication regarding disciplinary procedures and expectations is essential in reinforcing ethical standards without creating a climate of fear or unfair bias.

Additional Considerations

Several considerations must be addressed to ensure fair and effective action. The legality of enforcing repayment through a promissory note should be verified, including compliance with employment and contract law. The company should also document all discussions and decisions comprehensively to protect against potential legal challenges.

In addition, the organization should review its internal controls over time sheet approval and payroll processing to prevent similar incidents. Implementing stronger oversight, such as supervisory review of time sheets before signing, can reduce opportunities for misconduct. Ethical training sessions may further reinforce the importance of honesty and integrity in the workplace.

Finally, the company should consider the broader organizational culture, ensuring that employees feel valued and supported. This increases trust and loyalty, reducing incentives for unethical behavior driven by financial hardship. Open dialogue about workplace ethics and clear policies can foster an environment where employees feel motivated to uphold integrity without fear of undue reprisal.

Conclusion

Balancing disciplinary fairness with organizational integrity requires a nuanced approach. The strategy of placing the secretary on probation and requiring repayment aligns with principles of justice and compassion, offering her a chance for accountability and redemption. This balanced approach benefits the organization by reinforcing ethical standards, supporting employee well-being, and reducing potential legal risks, all while fostering a culture of honesty and trust in the workplace.

References

• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2019). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Cengage Learning.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. HarperOne.
• Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Ethical Leadership. Sage Publications.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger Publishers.
• Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(4), 517-549.
• Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Ethical leadership: Creating an ethical organizational climate. Organizational Dynamics, 47(4), 231–236.
• Bowden, J. (2018). Ethical Practice in Human Resource Management. Routledge.
• USDOL. (2020). FLSA Overtime Pay Rules and Regulations. U.S. Department of Labor.
• Martin, K. (2019). Managing Ethical Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 567–583.
• Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiplicity and integrity in organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(2), 139-147.