Reference no: EM133164063

A technology services EE made a coding error that created a material error in an entire set of performance reports. Her efforts to rectify the situation produced a second set of incorrect reports. As a result of the series of errors, the ER incurred extra costs of $2,400, plus a weekend of overtime by other technology services staffers to try to hunt down and correct the error. Management suspended the EE for 3 days for negligence, and also revoked a promotion for which the EE had previously been approved.Protesting the discipline, the EE stressed that she had attempted to correct her error in the early stages of the project by notifying the manager of technology services of her mistake. Maintaining that the resulting string of errors could have been avoided if the manager had followed up on her report and stopped the initial run, the EE argued that she had been treated unfairly in being severely punished because the manager had not been disciplined at all even though he had compounded the problem. Citing her "impeccable" work record and management's acknowledgment that she had always been a "model EE," the EE insisted that the denial of her previously approved promotion was "unconscionable."

Part A: Provide a thorough analysis of the case facts before you answer Part B & C.¡Consider an examination of what you know from the EE's perspective and then from the ER's.¡Make sure your analysis considers the relevant concepts discussed in your text:÷Due process & fairness÷"just cause" for employee discipline÷Progressive discipline÷Preventive, corrective, or positive discipline÷Any other concepts you think are relevant to the present case

Part B: Place yourself in the position of arbitrator, an independent, unbiased judge, who 'hears' a grievance from the EE. The arbitrator must summarize the arguments of both sides, the disciplined EE and the ER, in order to find a just resolution of the grievance. Determine what your decision would be and why?