MIR Case # 1

Standard Textile and Printing Works

The Standard Textile Printing Works conduct business in high quality printing of superior textiles. It has a good reputation in the market. The company employs about 500 workers who work in three shifts a day. There is no union in the plant. The CEO of the Works is designated as General Manager who is assisted by three Shift Managers, six Supervisors and twelve Assistant Supervisors.

For the past few months, the General Manager had been receiving frequent complaints from Shift Managers that a large number of pieces of customer’s cloth were missing from the plant and they could not account for the losses. The General Manager took a serious view of the losses because it meant not only payment of damages to the customers but also the reputation of the company in the market. He therefore, ordered a close search of workers at the time of their exit. As a result of these searches, a couple of workers were caught with pieces of cloth hidden inside their dresses. They were charge-sheeted for theft and subsequently dismissed after the domestic enquiry.

The other day, during lunch interval, Vinayak, a worker in the folding department saw an Assistant Supervisor taking a piece of cloth and then putting the same in his briefcase. Vinayak immediately reported the matter to the Shift Manager who came to the department and found the said piece in the briefcase of the Assistant Supervisor. Without any discussion, he asked the Assistant Supervisor to see him in his office. A week passed and the concerned Assistant Supervisor continued to work as usual.

During all this while, the Assistant Supervisor threatened Vinayak that the latter’s days in the company were numbered. Vinayak was obviously upset at the turn of event. He approached the Shift Manager to enquire about the case and what action was taken against the Assistant Supervisor. The Shift Manager politely replied, ‘I am thankful to you for whatever you did, it is none of your business to know what action we are taking against him. Remember that, after all, he is your officer.’ Vinayak felt irritated, but left the office of the Shift Manager without uttering a word.

On the same day, when the watchman was about to search Vinayak while he was leaving the plant, Vinayak shouted at the watchman saying, ‘I will not allow myself to be searched unless the officers are also searched. They are the real thieves’. The watchman detained Vinayak at the gate and reported the matter to the General Manager, who called Vinayak to his office. On being questioned by the General Manager, Vinayak told him all about the pieces of cloth in the Assistant Supervisor’s briefcase and subsequent events and repeated what he had said to the watchman. The General Manager thereupon asked him angrily, ‘Do you mean to say that we are thieves?’ Vinayak curtly replied, ‘You may take it that way, if you so desire.’ The General Manager recorded the incident along with Vinayak’s reply to his question and took his signature on it.

Next day, Vinayak was served with a suspension order for his ‘Act of Insubordination and Indecent Behaviour’. Thereafter the General Manager referred the case to the Personnel Manager.

Case Questions:

What are the main issues in the case?
How far is the action of the General Manager justified?
As Personnel Manager, how would you handle the case? Give valid reasons in support of your action.