Introduction
Being a judge is never an easy task. You have to make sure that you don’t take sides during the hearing of the case. You also have to make sure you listen keenly to the case as presented before you. You should give both sides equal opportunities to argue out their case and bring aboard any witness that may be relevant.
Every person according to the constitution is entitled to a fair hearing in a court of law. The most important thing is to make sure you give fair judgement according to the law. It is important to always observe the rule of law and uphold the constitution at all times.
Scenario one
In this scenario we find that a supervisor by the name of Justin Ames has been making sexual advances towards an employee by the name Anita Mills. However, instead of seeking legal advice or reporting James Ames to the relevant authorities, Anita Mills decides to consult a supervisor by the name Anna Flores. Anna Flores advices Anita Mills not to report the incident and is able to convince her that it will all go away with time.
However, things get worse when Anita mills goes to be reviewed. She is accompanied by Anna Flores who acts as an observer during the review process. However, this does not make matters better as Justin Ames goes ahead and gives Anita Mills a negative rating. This annoys Anita Mills and she decides to take legal action.
If I were a judge in a court of law, I would carefully look into the case with the seriousness it deserves. Sexual harassment is banned in the workplace by the laws of the country (Mello 2006). In this case it is evident James Ames is victimizing Anita Mills because she refused to give into his advances.
He also does this partly because Anita Mills did not take any action when he first made his advances. It is evident that Anita Mills has been under stress. She even takes a day off to go see a therapist. In this case the company would not win. There is substantial evidence that shows that James has been sexually harassing Anita Mills and further victimizing her by not giving her a fair review.
Scenario two
In this case, manager Pete Bartel is dismissed by human resource manager Frank Framer on grounds that he his performance has been wanting. Pete Bartel has not met his targets for some time. He attributes this to the ever rising cost of raw materials. Pete Bartel argues out that he should have been given a warning according to the company’s policy before being dismissed.
However, Frank argues that the company had put him on probation the first time he had failed to meet his targets. Contracts are legally binding documents between an employer and employee. It is evident that Pete Bartel has not been performing as required. But before the company can dismiss him, they have to follow due process. In this case, Pete Bartel should have been given several warnings before being dismissed.
This is clearly stated in the manager’s workbook one the policies of the company. The company has breached the law and its own policies in this case. Pete Bartel would, therefore, win this case and be reinstated as the manager. The company should have followed due process before dismissing Pete Bartel.
Reference
Mello, J. A. (2006). Strategic human resource management. Mason, OH: South- Western Cengage Learning.