1. Case study - Women on the Right Track at CP Rail

Women comprise nearly half of Canada's workforce, but over the last two decades, they have made no progress in obtaining senior management roles. This lack of success may deter younger women from entering certain professions and from learning from role models. Furthermore, research shows that a lack of diversity can affect retention, productivity, and innovation. Companies with more female senior managers have a higher return on equity than those with lower rates of female senior managers. With this research in mind, CP Rail undertook three initiatives to increase the number of women managers:

Each department must have diversity goals. Mentoring programs for females have been established. Senior women discuss their careers in forums. Women on Track offers networking opportunities.

To date, the program has been successful, with the number of women in senior management doubling over 5 years.Questions

1. Compare CP Rail’s initiatives to advance women with the recommended six-step program for the implementation of employment equity.

2. Review the list in Highlights in HRM 3.1 (retention strategies). What more could CP Rail undertake?

Here is Highlight H.R.M 3.1 ( retention strategies ) see bellow.

2. Case study “Fairmont Hotels and Resorts”

Corporate social responsibility through environmental sensitivity, among others, has recently surfaced as a pressing organizational issue. However, Fairmont Hotels and Resorts has been one of the firms in the forefront with its Green Partnership program. The Toronto-based company initiated a chain-wide environmental program in 1990; it has now spread to more than 40 locations globally,, winning several international awards along the way. Fairmont became particularly interested in the initiatives because of its locations in sensitive environments such as national parks, biosphere reserves, and wetlands. The environmental pro-gram now includes eco-innovation projects at its hotels, such as turtle Conservation in Mexico, coral reef protection in Hawaii, and whale adoption in Quebec.

Empowered employees are vital to the success of the programs. Employees were first encouraged to buy in before implementation through involvement in the development of the programs and effective communication; new employees are given an orientation on the green programs; volunteer teams meet monthly and discuss how to improve on the green programs; and there is an incentive program for the green teams with the best results. Fairmont management claims that employees feel empowered because they have an ownership in the programs.

Questions

1. What arguments could be advanced both for and against the use of employee empowerment? 2. Assume you are a manager at Fairmont. What would you do differently to further empower employees? 3. Let us say that employees begin to resist the changes and prefer to perform their traditional duties. How would you manage such resistance and at the same time sustain empowerment?

Case study # 3 - Onboarding at capital power

Capital Power is an independent power producer, based in Edmonton, Alberta, but with operations across North America. It has an aggressive growth strategy with the goal of tripling its generating capacity by 2020. With this strategy, Capital Power needs to increase its workforce of 950 employees and retain the talent that it plans to hire. Feeling that traditional orientation

programs were not effective, the senior vice president of HR, environment, and health and safety designed and implemented an onboarding program called Strong Start. The features of the program include :• A new hire portal, which directs the new employee to content relevant to the position• An e-learning module, Capital Power 101: The Basics, which outlines the organization’s design, vision, values, leadership team, major policies, and how the company makes money, as well as the growth strategy• An e-learning module, Capital Power 102: Powering Up and Plugging In, provides the template for a 100-day developmental plan that the new hire must create with the manager• A day-and-a-half classroom session with other new hires, which includes a personality inventory (to increase self-insight);a presentation by an executive about the mission, vision, and values; and a plant tour

An assessment of the Strong Start program revealed that over 90 percent felt that the program leads to the engagement of employees, aligns employees with the culture of the company, and enables new hires to be more successful. A majority also felt that it will assist in reducing turnover. There has been a 30 percent increase in organizational knowledge among participants.According to a study by Alan Saks (University of Toronto) and Jamie Gruman (University of Guelph), structured onboarding tactics result in more engaged employees who believe that they fit both the job and the organization.Onboarding programs, unlike orientation programs, create opportunities for employees to develop a social network and establish where and how to get information.

Questions 1. Using the checklist in Highlights in HRM 7.7, compare the requirements for an orientation program to Capital Power’s Strong Start program. What are the differences? 2.Capital Power has evaluated its program. Using the four levels of evaluation, determine which levels were used. Prepare an evaluation program that will assess the goals of the program and the goals of onboarding outlined by Saks and Gruman.

See below HRM 7.7

Case study # 4 JUST-IN-TIME FEEDBACK

Critics of formal performance evaluation programs cite “timeliness” as the major disadvantage of the annual formal performance appraisal interview. This criticism is gaining force as more people become accustomed to instant dialogue on BlackBerries, Facebook, and Twitter. The second criticism of the traditional performance appraisal interview is the one-way nature of the communication. The Net generation wants dialogue, not lectures. They want instant feedback and information about everything. The traditional process does not deliver what employees want: constant, timely, and interactive feedback. Daily feedback is more important and effective than annual feedback.Technology may be the answer. A Canadian company, Rypple, has created a Web-based service to replace the performance review. Instead of waiting one year to sit down with a boss, employees choose some advisors who could be mentors, coworkers, managers, or clients. These employee scan then contact the advisors with direct questions (How do I prepare gor the report to the board?) or career queries (How can I be more effective on my job?). The advisors can respond quickly and anonymously to provide real-time, just-in-time performance feedback.Questions

1. What are the advantages and limitations of this kind of performance feedback?

2. Who would you choose as mentors in your

current job and why?

3. What questions would you ask them?

Case study # 5 CANADA POST Canada Post Corporation employs 67,000 workers, which makes it one of Canada’s largest employers. In 1997, it revised its job evaluation system for postmasters and assistants. The old system, which had been in place since 1976, did not take into account changes that had arisen since 1981, when Canada Post became a Crown corporation.An HR consulting firm, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, was hired to assist with the entire process. According to Linda Tremblay of Organization Planning and Development, Canada Post, the job evaluation system was revised to incorporate employee input, to be responsive to federal pay equity legislation, and, most importantly, to reflect corporate culture and values.The new job evaluation system measured the content and relative value of jobs. The system evaluated jobs according to their “typical” or “normal” components—that is, tasks that were done on a regular basis. These compensable factors were a function of the job itself, not of the performance of the person doing the job.The four factors considered and their relative weights were as follows:

A: Responsibilities—What type of responsibilities

does the job entail? 60 percent

B: Skills—What particular skills are needed to accomplish the job? 25 percent

C: Working conditions—What working conditions apply to the job? 11 percent

D: Effort—What amount of effort does the job require? 4 percent

Total: 100 percent

An Example of An Item under C: Working Conditions

This factor measures the surroundings or physical conditions under which work must be done and the extent to which they make the job disagree-able. Consider whether elements such as those listed are present and the relative amount and continuity of exposure: Place a checkmark beside all those that applylisted are present and the relative amount and continuity of exposure:Place a checkmark beside all those that apply:• Adverse weather conditions• Confined work Dirt/dust Fumes Inadequate lighting

• Lack of privacy• Noisy conditions

• Temperature extremes • Verbal abuse/public harassment • OtherJob evaluation criteria, such as in the above example, were used in each of the four areas and are summerised below.

JOB EVALUATION CRITERIA

Compensable Factors Components

Responsibilities - Internal andexternalcontacts Decision making Supervision of employees Responsibility for property maintenance Responsibility for rural routes, suburban stage service Points of call Responsibility for contractor invoices Responsibility for a till and/or authorized allowance

Skills - Knowledge areas (such as budget process, collective agreement,

- contacted services in mail operations or property management, - financial practices, procedures knowledge, product knowledge, - primary sortation, Final sortation, sales and customer service

- Job-related Experience Working conditions - Physical work environment - Travel Effort -Physical effort - Multiple demands

Employees completed the job evaluation questionnaire for their own jobs. The completed questionnaires were reviewed by supervisors, managers, and HR staff. Total points were then

allocated to each job, which corresponded to one of six job bands. Collective agreement negotiations were used to set the rates of pay for each job band.

Questions 1. What type of job evaluation did Canada Post use?

2. What are the advantages and limitations of this system?

3. Is you were asked to review both the ques-tionnaire and the process used to obtain the job information, what recommendations for changes would you make?. Case study # 6 JOB STRESS

Job fatigue and stress are significant problems faced by employees and their managers. Unfortunately, when a case of depression arises as a result, trying to resolve the problem may be difficult sometimes leading to conflict as this case illustrates.

Donald Knolls was an air traffic control super-visor for International Gateway Airport (IGA), an airport serving a major metropolitan area. In 2011, Donald began to experience depression-related problems due largely to severe stress and fatigue on the job. A few months later, he requested and was granted a disability leave for treatment of his illness. After eight months, his personal physician, an expert in depression treatment and a licensed consulting psychologist, agreed that he was suffi-ciently improved to return to his former position.IGA then sent Donald to the physician it had used when

Donald first requested his disability leave. After an extensive evaluation, the doctor concluded that although Donald had made con-siderable strides in overcoming his depression, he should not be immediately returned to his former supervisory position because the conditions of the job had not changed and Donald was apt to find the stress too great. Instead, he recommended that Donald be returned to a nonsupervisory posi-tion on a six-month trial basis, with the case to be reviewed at the end of that time. IGA followed the advice of its doctor and did not return Donald to a supervisory position. Donald, angered by management’s decision, filed a grievance through IGA’s alternative dispute resolution procedure, a procedure that could end in binding arbitration.

During several meetings between Donald and management, the employer maintained that it had the right to rely on the medical opinion of “a fair and impartial” doctor who had determined that Donald should not be returned to the position that was the cause of his original stress-related emotional problems. Additionally, management pointed out to Donald that IGA’s disability leave provision states that it “may require appropriate medical documentation if it believes an employee is not fit to return to his or her former position.”

Donald responded, through a lawyer he hired to represent his position, that the disability leave provisions were clear but, nevertheless, biased against an employee because they completely disregarded the opinion of his physician and psychologist. According to Donald, “Why bother to get expert medical opinions if they are dis-missed?” He further noted, “I have never felt better. I’m really ready to get back to my job.” Finally, Donald’s lawyer contended that Donald was the victim of discrimination based on his former state of depression: “What happened to Donald would not have happened if his illness had been a more conventional physical injury.”

Questions

1. When conflicting medical opinions are presented, should the advice of a medical expert count more heavily than the opinion of a general physician? Explain your answer.

2. Is the charge of discrimination presented by Donald’s lawyer relevant to this case? Explain your answer.

3. If you were presented with this case, what decision would you reach? Explain.

Case study # 7 "Improving Performance Through a Progressive Discipline Policy

Simon Ouellet, former president of the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario, was recruited by Fantom Technologies to be vice president of HR. Fantom is a manufacturer of state-of-the-art floor care products based in southern Ontario.

One of the first issues he faced in his new job was an unacceptable absenteeism rate. There were about 250 employees on the 3 assembly lines, operating 2 shifts a day. The average employee was absent 13 or 14 days a year. The benchmark for other manufacturing sites was 8 or 9 days. Simon calculated that Fantom was employing between 30 and 35 extra people to cover absences. This hurt the bottom line.

A related problem was punctuality. Employees were habitually 5 or 10 minutes late on their shifts. In a white-collar environment with flextime, this would not have been as critical. But tardiness in this situation meant that the assembly line could not operate and that the other employees on the three lines were forced to remain idle. The solution was to develop a system of progressive discipline. Simon prepared a simple two-page policy. Page 1 dealt with culpable absenteeism—the behaviour in the control of employees, such as arriving late, leaving work withoutpermission, calling in sick but playing golf, and so on. Page 2 dealt with legitimate or innocent absences. Simon met with the unions and notified them that this policy would come into effect as of December 1998. All employees started at zero absences at this time. The policy assumed that all absences were innocent. However, if an employee was absent 5 times in a 12-month period, the supervisor met with that employee to express concern over the absences and to identify any need for counsel-ling or assistance. The goal of the meeting was to expresslegitimate concerns, reinforce that the employee was needed, and ensure that the employee accepted responsibility for managing his or her own attendance. Following this meeting, if the employee had fewer than two absences in the ensuing six months, the employee was no longer part of the program. However, if the absence pattern continued, the employee was counselled a second and third time. If no improvements resulted, a level 4 employment status review was conducted. This was done on a case-by-case basis. For example, a frequently absent employee with 28 years of good service would

be treated differently from another employee with the same absenteeism record but only 2 years of employment. The results were impressive. About 70 employees entered the program. Of these, 8 to 10 advanced to step 2, 2 to step 3, and none to step 4. The absenteeism rate dropped to an average of fewer than 10 days, and punctuality was no longer an issue. Labour costs were reduced because it meant that 20 fewer employees were needed.

Questions 1. “The policy assumed that all absences were innocent.” What do you think this means?

2. Do you think the application of the policy would be affected if the absences were due to a disability as defined in the Human Rights Code?

3. The policy was active as of December 1998, and all employees were treated equally from that date, regardless of their previous absen-teeism records. Was this fair?

4. Could a policy of this type be developed to manage student punctuality and absenteeism?

Case study # 8 wall mart

In 2006, Walmart was operating more than 6,500 stores with 1.8 milion employees around the world. In the early 1990s, Walmart Stores Inc. expanded into Canada, with the purchase of

122 stores from the failing Woolco chain. Walmart had refused to purchase nine Woolco stores that were unionized. Walmart tries to distinguish itself from other retailers by its culture. For example, it calls its workers “associates,” not employees. Every day at 8:45 a.m., a compulsory meeting is held at each store during which company managers share financial information and performance targets and respond to questions. The meeting ends with the Walmart cheer. The company operates an open-door policy, whereby any employee can talk to any member of management about issues and receive answers without being threatened with reprisal. The sundown rule ensures that management responds to the questions before sundown the same day. The first Walmart store ever to be unionized was in Windsor, Ontario, where the United Steelworkers (Retail and Wholesale Division) was certified by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). On April 14, 1997, the United Steelworkers began its organizing drive. On April 26, the store manager became aware that associates were being approached to sign unionization cards. The district manager was told of the organizing drive and the next morning attended the morning meeting. The district manager asked the associates why they would want to join a union and spent the day circulating through the store to discuss their problems or concerns. By April 27, 84 associates had signed cards. On April 29, an associate asked to speak at the morning meeting and there expressed her opposition to the union, ending with the statement, “A union will only cause discontentment in our store, and I assure you as I am standing here, Walmart will not put up with it.” (Management did not ask, nor did the associate reveal, why she wanted to speak.) An inside organizer was prevented from responding

because it was 9 a.m. and customers were waiting to enter the store. Between May 4 and May 9, Walmart managers— including managers from outside the store responded to questions placed in a question-and-answer box and to those raised while they wandered about the store. Most of the ques-tions focused on compensation and hours of work. However, questions were also raised about whether Walmart would close the store and dis-miss the employees if the union was successful. Walmart answered that “it would be inappropriate for our company to comment on what it will or will not do if the store is unionized.” It repeated that line when employees asked the same question in person. One associate testified that one manager said that things would change if the employees were unionized—for example, the profit-sharing plan would be revoked. On May 9, the union lost the vote, with 151 employees voting against it and 43 voting for it.

The OLRB nonetheless certified the union because the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by not disassociating itself from the remarks made by the associate at the meeting; by not allowing the inside organizer to respond; by soliciting questions about the impact of unionization but then refusing to tell employees that they would not all be fired if the union won; and by using senior outside managers to engage employees in frequent and repetitive discussions about the unionization drive in the days leading up to the vote. The OLRB stated that the union had 84 cards signed before the managers’ visits, and a week later, this support had dropped. A second vote would not change the outcome because the threat to job security

could not be erased from employees’ minds. After Walmart’s illegal conduct was remedied by a certification order, the Ontario government changed the law to take away that remedial option from the labour board. However, the right to certify a union as a remedy for unfair labour practices has once again been restored in Ontario and exists in other Canadian jurisdictions.Despite numerous organizing drives, Walmart continues to try to be union free. The UFCW charged Walmart with unfair labour practices in thwarting a union organizing drive in British Columbia by discrediting the key organizer and by advising employees that if he turned up at their homes, they could call the police. The B.C. Labour Board said, “Walmart has an anti-union history . … and simply cannot resist the temptation to get involved in certification campaigns. While Walmart has tended not to repeat its mistakes, there is no shortage of new ones that it finds ways to make.” In the company’s view, not being able to answer employee concerns about unionization is not part of its culture of open communication. But two labour relations boards believe that the company has gone too far in communication by, for example, distributing anti-union literature at a store in Quesnel, B.C. Walmart is seeking to change labour laws to allow it to address employee concerns.

Questions

1. What were the rights of Walmart, the employer, during these two organizing drives?

2. The certification of the first Walmart was hailed by labour as a milestone event. Why?

3. In your opinion, can Walmart remain union free indefinitely? Why or why not?

4. Should foreign companies that operate in Canada use their resources to try to weaken Canadian labour laws or accept the legal culture of the country and comply with those laws?