Case Study
Introduction To Human Resource Management
Case Application 4-B: Off The Job Behaviors
October 3, 2013
1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position.
a) After reading this case yes I believe that Mr. Oiler’s employee rights were violated for a number of reasons. For starters the case did not provide any evidence that proved that his personal life behavior affected his performance at work. The case study did not mention anything about Mr. Olier cross-dressing at work or doing so while spending time with fellow employees. What Mr. Olier chose to do during his personal time did not affect his job in any way according to this study. In fact it was shown that he was a good employee with a great reputation and work ethic. On another note I also believe that Mr. Olier’s right to have a personal life was violated by his former employer. I say this because employees all over the world may engage in certain activities that may not be appropriate for the workplace, however they keep them very separate. In doing this is how we have a work-life balance, what happens in the office should remain professional and benefit the company. Just as what happens at home or after work hours etc. should remain personal. This remains true as long as employees aren’t representing the company by wearing a company uniform etc. personal time should be just that…personal time.
2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain
a) Unfortunately in this case Mr. Olier was fired and the lawsuit was a victory for the Winn-Dixie company. However I think that an employer who chooses to punish their employees because they do not agree with or take offense to their “off-the-job behaviors” should be mindful that employees may not respond to this kind of situation quietly. I believe that employers should be aware that consequences such as lawsuits, bad press and a change in reputation can
Case Application 4-B: Off The Job Behaviors
October 3, 2013
1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position.
a) After reading this case yes I believe that Mr. Oiler’s employee rights were violated for a number of reasons. For starters the case did not provide any evidence that proved that his personal life behavior affected his performance at work. The case study did not mention anything about Mr. Olier cross-dressing at work or doing so while spending time with fellow employees. What Mr. Olier chose to do during his personal time did not affect his job in any way according to this study. In fact it was shown that he was a good employee with a great reputation and work ethic. On another note I also believe that Mr. Olier’s right to have a personal life was violated by his former employer. I say this because employees all over the world may engage in certain activities that may not be appropriate for the workplace, however they keep them very separate. In doing this is how we have a work-life balance, what happens in the office should remain professional and benefit the company. Just as what happens at home or after work hours etc. should remain personal. This remains true as long as employees aren’t representing the company by wearing a company uniform etc. personal time should be just that…personal time.
2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain
a) Unfortunately in this case Mr. Olier was fired and the lawsuit was a victory for the Winn-Dixie company. However I think that an employer who chooses to punish their employees because they do not agree with or take offense to their “off-the-job behaviors” should be mindful that employees may not respond to this kind of situation quietly. I believe that employers should be aware that consequences such as lawsuits, bad press and a change in reputation can