1995 Auto Corp recently has been experiencing a trend in employee and labor relations issues of which they are highly concerned with the maintenance of a drug-free workplace. In connection to this point, the problem seemingly stems from one common point of which it is the general requirement for more definitive policies and probably procedures. In actual sense, employee and labor relations are the two issues that have brought about the differences realized. So to speak, there have been complains regarding the unfair treatment that the employees receive from the managers. Together with these, concerns have been raised over the disciplinary actions often received.
Along with this, there has also been a general concern over the new policies. In combination with this point, there has been an issue that concern production supervisors who are unclear on the facility’s union grievance procedures. At the same time, the non-production supervisors are also indistinct in relation to the way they handle employee concerns in their offices. As a result, it is within the employees’ complaints that a means to voice their concerns is limited and therefore required. Needless to say, employee morale and performance has declined with time owing to the confusion that has been realized in regard to grievance procedures.
Again in this context, the general performance of the company has been affected thus jeopardizing its competitiveness in market. Following the background that has been provided regarding the issues facing 1995 Auto Corp, it is important to state that redefinition of the policies regarding grievance procedures would work. As the Human resource consultant, I am obliged to educate 1995 Auto Corp.’s management team on grievance practices. So to speak, grievance practices have so much to do with the way the employee’s complaints or in simple terms grievances are tackled by the management. Most important parts of a grievance procedure are preliminary the first ones whereby the grievance is presented (Gennard & Judge, 2005).
In line with this point, grievance procedures should take into consideration investigation along with enough research of the problem faced. In addition, the procedure should provide room for a meeting with the employer regarding the complaint. Again in this context, the management should provide room for the employees to state and frame the case in the first meeting (Holley, Jennings & Wolters, 2008). Additionally, the use of the grievance action should be the last one to be applied. According to National labor relations, an employee has a right to talk out his or her complaint. However, the employer is not permitted to settle the issue without the consent of the union members who bargain for the settlement of the problem.
In this context, I would recommend that 1995 Auto Corp.’s management team should state clearly how the grievances of the employees should be handled. This can be achieved by investigating the grievance to establish the involved, the problem involved, the exact happening and when it happened along with the underlying cause for the problem altogether (Gennard & Judge, 2005). Following this point, establishment of legitimacy of the problem should be done. In consistent with this point, the procedure should give room for the remedy that the union thinks is the best. Accordingly, the problem should be reviewed in order to resolve it at first having provided the stand points of both the employer and employee.
On the other hand, 1995 Auto Corp. is faced by the issues of some accidents that have occurred on the production floor. Having been stated that drug use is the main causing factor, a drug-free workplace policy would work towards resolving the problem. Taking the example of Drug Free Workplace Act of 1998 (DFWA), it can provide a point of consideration for implementation of a drug free workplace (Lawson, 1998). Equally important, it is the fact that 1995 Auto Corp. has both union and unionized workers. At the same time, 1995 Auto Corp. is not covered under this Act; however, Department of Labor has provided numerous recommendations for other organizations to establish a drug-free workplace.
For this reason, I would recommend that 1995 Auto Corp.’s management team take the consideration of this point. So to articulate, drug free workplace is meant to provide workplace programs that help improve workplace safety and health in unions of all sizes along with all industries. As a matter of fact, DFWA is meant to encourage drug free workplaces without placing a heavy-handed mandates on the business (Lumas, 2007). Basically, comprehensive drug free workplace should involve supervisor training, drug testing, employee assistance and employee education along with maintaining drug free workplace from the broader point of view. By establishing a drug free workplace, the policy should state the reason for implementation. Moreover, a definitive description of prohibited behaviors should be provided. Furthermore, consequences of violating the policy should be stated in detail (Lawson, 1998).
As a matter of fact, DFWA as the anti-drug measure is meant to assist and educate employers who are in need of implementing drug free workplace programs. Principally, the workforce is a catalyst behind the tremendous economy in any organization. With the declining performance of the employees realized, it is important for 1995 Auto Corp. to establish this policy. This is given to the reason that about 70% of drug users are employed. As such, they present high job absenteeism and under-performance along with causing of accidents as one handles the facility (Lumas, 2007).
With the recommendations provided above, 1995 Auto Corp.’s management team should implement in order to ensure that performance and the motivation of employees is realized. As a result the company will remain competitive and viable in terms of grievance procedures thus encouraging employee-employer relationships.