ABC Manufacturing Company Essay

The ABC Manufacturing Company is a metal working rig under the direction of a plant manager who is known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman disc everyplace Bhola, unity of the workers, at the sentence-clock punching out two tease aparts his own and the card of Nathu, a fellow worker. Since it was the sway of the company that each man must(prenominal) punch out his own card, the foreman asked Bhola to accompany him to the personnel depart workforcet Director, who interpret the incident as a direct violation of a rule and gave immediate notice of discharge to both workers.The two workers came to see the military unit Director on the following day. Nathu claimed innocence on the ground that he had not asked for his card to be punched and did not know at the time that it was creation punched. He had been offered a ride by a consort who had already punched out and who could not wait for him to go through the punch-out procedure. Nathu was unhinged about his wife w ho was ill at home and was anxious to relegate home as quickly as possible. He planned to generate his card to the foreman the next morning for reinstatement, a provision sometimes exercised in such cases.These circumstances were verified by Bhola. He claimed that he had punched Nathus card the same time he punched his own, not being conscious of any wrongdoing. The Personnel Director was inclined to believe the horizontal surface of the two men but did not feel he could turn over the action taken. He recognized that these men were good workers and had good records foregoing to this incident. Nevertheless, they had violated a rule for which the penalty was immediate discharge. He also reminded them that it was the policy of the company to obligate the rules without exception.A few days later(prenominal) the Personnel Director, the Plant Manager, and the Sales Manager sat together at lunch. The Sales Manager reported that he was faced with the necessity of notifying nonparei l of their best customers that his order must be delayed because of the liability of one department to conform to schedule. The department in question was the one from which the two workers had been discharged. Not only had it been impossible to replace these men to date, but disgruntlement over the incident had led to significant decline in the cooperation of the other workers.The Personnel Director and the Sales Manager took the position that the discha rge of these two valuable men could open been avoided if there had been provision for onsidering the circumstances of the case. They pointed out that the incident was dearly-won to the company in the possible loss of a customer, in the dissatisfaction at heart the employee group, and in the time and money that would be involved in recruiting and raising replacements.The Plant Manager could not agree with this point of view. We must have rules if we are to have efficiency and the rules are no god unless we enforce them. Furtherm ore, if we start considering all these variations in circumstances, we will find ourselves loaded vanquish with everybody thinking he is an exception. He admitted that the grievances were frequent but countered with the point that they could be of little consequence if the contract agreed to by the union was followed to the earn