Introduction / Context:
Handling workplace misconduct requires due process. Because the individual is an active union member, engaging the recognised grievance/disciplinary mechanism through the union is typically the proper first step, ensuring fairness and compliance with standing agreements.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Observed misconduct: repeated rude behaviour towards superiors.
- Proposed actions: I) transfer him to another department; II) refer the matter to the Union.
- Assume the organisation has a recognised union and established disciplinary procedures.
Concept / Approach:
The best initial course should be fair, transparent, and sustainable. Transferring a problem employee often relocates the problem without addressing it. Referring to the union activates agreed procedures and may enable corrective counselling or formal discipline.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I (transfer): This is an administrative patch, not a remedy. It may be perceived as victimisation and can invite a dispute without addressing conduct.Assess II (refer to Union): This engages the formal framework (charges, inquiry, counselling, progressive discipline). It respects collective bargaining norms and due process. Logical first step.
Verification / Alternative check:
Progressive discipline typically includes documenting incidents, written warnings, and hearings with union representation prior to punitive actions such as transfer or suspension.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Either / Both: Transfer alone lacks justification and may escalate conflict. “Both” is excessive at the outset.Neither: Incorrect because some action must address repeated misconduct.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing relocation with resolution; overlooking contractual procedures for unionised staff.
Final Answer:
Only II follows
Discussion & Comments