The code section to be interpretated:
Code 1.3. – All employees of The Company shall have a prearranged monetary and/or monetary valued benefit compensation for the work for which they are employed by The Company.
This section of the code requires The Company to specify the responsibilities of employees before they are hired. Once this specification is complete, the act of hiring is the entrance into an agreement in which the company agrees to recompense the employee for that specified work, as long as the employee performs the work as specified and in accordance with this code of business conduct.
Example of Misconduct Under This Code Section:
Employee A is in charge of managing a production facility with many subordinate employees and is in charge of insuring that the facility is properly staffed. Employee B creates an informed business projection which indicates that the production facility will soon become understaffed if sales continue as projected. Employee A disagrees with this projection, doesn’t want to risk being seen as negligent, and doesn’t want to have to deal with outside projections from Employee B anymore. Employee A makes a show of hiring new employees as recommended by Employee B. Employee A neither informs the new employees of the work which they are required to do, nor trains them to do anything correctly. Instead, Employee A hands the new hires off to their subordinates for them to make use of as they wish. The new hires are trained to random degrees and produce random levels of output, but most production is offset by a loss in production of existing employees as the existing employees delegate their work to the new hires. Employee A turns out to have been correct about the sales projections and the facility is overstaffed. Employee A then selects subordinates which do not regularly perform favors for Employee A or are not otherwise “friends” with Employee A and terminates their employments for either neglecting to train new hires properly (if they are one of the existing employees) or for not doing their work properly (if they are one of the new hires that was never properly trained). Furthermore, Employee A wages a campaign to convince other executives of the company that Employee B is incompetent. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 1.3 because Employee A did not specify the work that the new hires needed to perform and thus left them with no way of knowing whether or not they were doing what they were hired for. Employee A is also guilty of Section 4 misconduct for discriminating based upon criteria other than price, proficiency, willingness, availability, and adherence to the code of conduct but this guilt can be presumed to be undiscoverable because Employee A and the unfired subordinates could reasonably be assumed to claim it was due to proficiency issues.
Example that is not Misconduct Under This Code Section:
Employee A is in charge of managing a production facility with many subordinate employees and is in charge of insuring that the facility is properly staffed. Employee B creates an informed business projection which indicates that the production facility will soon become understaffed if sales continue as projected. Employee A disagrees with this projection, and explains the reasons why to Employee B. Employee B revises the recommendations lower based upon these reasons. Employee A hires a few new employees in accordance with the revised informed recommendation from Employee B. Employee A insures that new hires are given a specification for the work that they must perform and are properly trained to do the work. Unpredictable outside forces later affect the market and the production facility is left overstaffed. Employee A selects subordinates to lay off based upon shortcomings in regards to price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct. There is no misconduct.
