CASE #33: The Case of the Fired Waitress
5. CSR ANALYSIS
In this case we could not really judge if the company focused on ethical, legal, and philanthropic corporate social responsibilities all together. But they did mention about Red Lobster’s and its employees ethical and legal responsibilities. The case did not mention if Red Lobsters support any social causes or do any volunteers for the community. Therefore, we cannot judge whether or not Red Lobster was responsible socially or philanthropically. Ethical: Canant, Red Lobster’s general manager, had to fire the waitress because removing the comment card from the locked box is considered unethical. It is against the restaurant rule to remove it from the box. The customer also felt violated because her card was taken away and felt that her complaint about the food and service had been ignored. This was good for the general manager because she remained consistent with the restaurant rule and had to fire the waitress. Legal: The restaurant provided a peer preview program as an alternative to filing suit. The waitress felt that she had been fired unjustly. The company dealt with her unhappiness correctly because they were willing to see the point of view from all sides and come up with a fair conclusion. 6. EVALUATIONS
From reading the case it is obvious that the manager and the company had huge influences in shaping the restaurant. The manager took part in commenting how the food was and decided if the waitress is right or wrong. The case shows us that the manager decided to fire the waitress because the waitress was thought to go against restaurant policy which is not to remove any property. We think that the manager is right to view that taking away the comment card is wrong, but firing the waitress is just too harsh. The manager should have hear the waitress’s point of view first because it seemed like she had lost or misplaced the card accidently and not purposely to hide an evidence. In the meanwhile, the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document