EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report was commissioned to examine why the disciplinary action taken on Ms. Khallouf was not justified one? Why was she treated unfairly and on what grounds? And also to recommend ways to make sure she is treated fairly by the management.
The report draws attention to the fact that in 1999, the Sydney Water disciplined one of its employee for breaching the code of conduct for not letting her manager know or seek her seniors approval of her outside employment in written. The disciplinary action taken, left the employee devastated. Further investigations reveal that the management never followed the grievance procedure correctly to solve the conflict. This finding coincided with an increase in ability awareness of the management by the disciplined employee and the HR facilitator who regards decision making, communication and confidentiality skills of the management as negative; moreover, the findings also revealed that the management never approached the Human Resource Department neither they ever consulted the employee regarding the matter. And also such a complex issue as described by the management was released to the public through the media which was humiliating the employee. These factors appear to be the major causes of unfair treatment of the employee by the management. Re-opening the case, and acting ethically to make sure that the employee is treated fairly and justly was put forward by the HR facilitator. The report evaluates these findings and concludes that it would be appropriate and ethical if employee is given a fair go and treated fairly that would satisfy and bring back confidence to the employee. It is recommended:

that auditing team must be trained well and must consists of professionals and not amateurs. grievance procedure is followed correctly and for every conflict. other departments be informed of the grievance and conflicts. confidentiality of employee and organisation must be maintained all the time, no matter what the cost.

INTRODUCTION

Sydney Water has disciplined an employee for not seeking her managers permission before taking up an outside employment with Ozfriends, which breaches the company's code of conduct. Nicole Khallouf appeared in a late night sex commercial which sparked fire in the organisation. The administrators ordered an investigation to be conducted by the internal audit team. The team came up with the conclusion that Ms. Khallouf's action doesn't meet with the company's code of conduct because she didn't get any approval for outside employment from her manager, Adrian Williams. The CEO of Australian Water Technologies, Anglo Sarandopoulos said that internal disciplinary measures and actions has been taken against Ms. Khallouf. He also said that it was not the nature of her outside employment, but the fact that she didn't seek permission and approval from her manager. ON asking about the disciplinary measures, he said that it was an internal matter. Maurie O'Sullivan, state president for Public Service Association stated that code of conduct such as Sydney's Water is not known anywhere else in the public service. It was reported that Ms. Nicole was on holidays from Wednesday morning and all the attempts to reach her were unsuccessful.

Review of Sydney Water Board Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedure

Sydney Water Board has Code of Conduct that covers aspects like Principle of Conduct, Guidelines for Behaviour, Use of Official Resources, Gifts and Benefits and Grievance Procedures. The company expects all of its employees to abide with the Code of Conduct which can be summarised as following: They are expected to behave honestly and ethically. Work in safe and healthy environment. Observe legislations, awards, policies and procedures. Follow the behaviour guideline that asks them to treat customers and employees with respect, keep within limits of authority, co-operate at all times in any inquiry, report unsafe practices, not falsify or wrongfully withhold information, carry out all lawful directions of managers/supervisors and observe policies, procedures and other written instructions and etc. Using official resources and information belonging to AWT restricts the employees to misuse them. They must deal honestly and equitably in the treatment of all tenders of supplies, they must use the resources effectively and economically. Not to misuse the information gained ;in their official capacity. They must not accept any unauthorised gifts except for small tokens of appreciation and promotion are allowed. While taking up an outside employment or performing duty, the employees must not have any conflict of interest. If there is any it should be notified to the ,manager in writing. The employees ranging from high level to low level are responsible for setting examples for others by working safely and ethically. Communicating and informing Standards of Conduct in the workplace. Taking correct actions and measures when unacceptable practices are identified. The employees are to report any improper conduct to the management. Before leaving AWT, employees are suppose to return all the company's property.

The Grievance Procedure and Dispute Resolutions of Sydney Water Board consists of 6 major steps. They are as follows: Notifying the immediate supervisor: the first step is to inform the supervisor or the manager regarding the grievance. Within 3 days of notification the supervisor will arrange for a meeting. More senior supervisor: If the grievance, somehow wasn't resolved in the meeting the senior supervisor is to be informed. The senior supervisor must arrange for a meeting in next 3 days.

Involvement of HR specialist: If the grievance was not resolved in the meeting then the HRD is to be contacted to resolve the grievance and for assistance. Involvement of senior management: If the matter is still not resolved the senior management is to be informed. Independent Arbitrator: If the matter is still not resolve, the party may, if agreed, refer to a arbitrator. Involvement of the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW: If still the matter is not resolve d in step 4 the party may contact the Industrial Relations Commission and seek their counsel. When a party decides to approach the Industrial Relations Commission, they must give 3 working days notice of their intention to notify.

Interview with Ms Nicole Khallouf

Me: Were you aware of the outside employment policy? Nicole: Yes, I was aware of the outside employment policy. Me: You, were aware of the outside employment policy and you still chose to do it? Nicole: Yes, I know what the employment policies are. We are allowed to have another job but it must be operatable in our private time. But before we can work for another employer. Me: Ms. Nicole, as you mentioned that you were aware of the employments policies that are laid down by the organisation and you still didn't get the written approval from your manager. Why is that? Nicole: Well, everybody knows that if I ever had asked for permission from my manager, he would have denied it from the very beginning, So I thought, why waste time for something that's never going to happen. It's very obvious that my manager wouldn't have approved me from having second job beside this one and especially if it's got something to do with late night sex conversation. Me: Were you aware of the consequences that you are facing? Nicole: Yes, I was aware of the consequences that would follow up after that job I took on, but not so harsh consequences. Well, I thought I might be given a warning or disciplined for not getting a written approval for outside employment. But I was never prepared for this. There was no proper investigation or counselling regarding my matter. They all showed up in an office, had few words and declared their verdict. I was shocked with their verdict. Suspension was something I never anticipated or saw coming. And going to the media, telling the world as in what's happening in the company, spoiling my image and name with career is irreplaceable. Me: Was there any conflict of interest Ms. Nicole? Nicole: No, there was no conflict of interest. I never intended nor have I ever or will I disclose any confidential information of my company. I never intended to harm my organisation neither its employees. I did what seemed to be right at the moment. Me: Do you think that, this little act of yours could damage or harm the image or goodwill of the organisation? Nicole: I don't see how my second job in my private time can affect the image of the company. I am not selling my company's information on a national television. It's my personal life in a private time which doesn't hurdles my company's working hours.

Me: Ms. Nicole do you think, you have been treated fairly? Is the penalty right for your mistake? Nicole: Have I been treated fairly? Not at all. Injustice has been done to me. It's a very big punishment, the way I have been dealt with is utterly disgusting. I shouldn't have been fired from my job. Not at least for one mistake. Me: If you think that you have been treated unfairly, what do think should have had happened or what should have been done? Nicole: I think I should have been given warning, at least for the first time. I have always performed my duty with dedication, never given a chance to my manager to complain or shout. And after working so hard and with dedication if I make one mistake, I must be given a chance. At least that I deserve. I should have been consulted. Me: Did the management followed the grievance procedure? Nicole: No, not all. The management didn't follow the grievance procedure at all. If they had followed the procedure the matter should have had solved in the first place, and not involving the media. Me: How do you feel about it? Nicole: I feel like I have been framed, mistreated. Injustice has been done to me. They tell me I have breached the code of conduct whereas they themselves by not following the grievance procedure have breached the very code of conduct. Me: Would you like to go back and work after your suspension period? Nicole: After all I have been through, the media flashing my name and my behaviour all over the world, it will be very hard for me to work in the same environment or the work place. I am traumatised and humiliated by the deeds of the management. Me: One last question. Did your manager gave you any heads up as to what was coming or did he approach you regarding the matter? Nicole: No one told me anything. No one approached me. I wasn't told anything. It came as a shock to me from nowhere. COMMENTS: In the beginning when I approached Ms. Nicole, she was very nervous and frightened to do the interview. On assuring her that I am from the HR department trying to help her and to get her justice made her feel comfortable. While conducting the I observed that she is really stressed out from the impact of the decision made by her superiors and she definitely feels that she wasn't treated fairly.

Interview with Mr. Adrian Williams

Me: What's the procedure to be followed if an existing employee is applying for a second job outside the organisation? Are they allowed to have another job? Adrian: Let me first answer your second part of the question, whether an existing employee can have another employer apart from us at the same time. Yes, they can have another job provided, the working hours for their second job is being managed in their private time and not during the working hours of the company. Before that, before they can have another job outside the organisation, an employee must get a written approval from their manager, allowing them to have employment outside the organisation. I believe that answers both of your question. Me: Are you happy and satisfied with the outcome of the disciplinary action? Adrian: I am not really happy with the outcome, seeing my secretary leave the organisation, getting fired didn't make me happy. What had to be done, was done. We did what we had to. Seeing her actions, not abiding with the company's guidelines and code of conduct made us to pull the plug. I can't be happy when I see one of my employee's leave the office. It's a sad moment. Me: Do you think she's been justified? Adrian: No comments. Me: Would you have agreed or given permission to Ms. Nicole if she had asked for your permission? Adrian: We can't just give permission to employees if they seek outside employment. We have to know as to why they want to have outside employment. There are certain things we need to take into consideration, like is there any conflict of interest, would it damage the image of the company, what impact would it set on other employees. Granting approval for outside employment is not so easy. Me: But would you have given her the permission is she had come to you in the first place? Adrian: If the image and employee of the organisation were at risk I wouldn't have. Me: But were they? If she had told you the entire scenario as in why she wanted to have an outside employment would you have give her the approval, Mr. Adrian? Adrian: Well it depends whether what she was doing was ethical or unethical. If it was right then definitely I would have given her the permission. Me: Mr. Adrian, do you have any grievance procedures? Adrian: Yes, like any other organisation we do have a grievance procedure.

Me: Did you follow the grievance procedure while dealing with Ms. Nicole's case? Adrian: Yes I did. When I realised that I can't solve the problem, I informed my superior immediately. Me: What made you to realise that you can't solve the problem? Adrian: Well the intensity of the problem was so big that I couldn't have solved it on my own. So I thought it would be better if I informed my supervisor and seniors. Me: If the grievance was resolved, why did you go to the media? Why tell the entire world as in what's been happening in your house? Don't you tend to keep confidential information of the organisation to yourselves? what do you think you can do to mend the image of your employee after publishing it to the world? Adrian: Going to the media wasn't my idea. It could have been someone else in the management, CEO or the Union, who knows. But definitely not me. And regarding the employees image, she should have had thought about it before committing such an act.

COMMENTS: I strongly believe that Adrian knows that Nicole hasn't been treated fairly. He didn't wanted to conduct the interview at all. But when he was questioned about his judgement, he was very defensive. I believe he was more upset just because of the fact that Ms. Nicole ignored him completely when she should have asked for his approval. The interview till the end wasn't the very pleasant one. Also towards the end it somehow shows that he is incapable of solving grievance on his own.

Interview with Mr. Anglo Sarandopoulos

Me: What was it really that made you so upset? Was it the advertisement which was the adult one or was it her actions? Anglo: Well, I was not the only one who was upset. There were many in the management and administration who were upset but not because of Ms. Khallouf's nature of outside employment but because of the fact that she didn't inform her manager neither thought of seeking consent from her seniors or her manager. Which, actually breaches the very code of conduct of the AWT. We didn't and don't care what her job was, the only thing that concerned us was the fact that we or I should say the manager, Adrian was not approached for seeking permission for the outside employment. Me: Do you think justice has been done to her? Was it the right disciplinary action taken by the management? Anglo: Sometimes doing the right thing and making the right decision can have a very tough effect on someone. And that's what Ms. Nicole must be feeling that she was not treated fairly. But she deserved that because of her actions. And I strongly believe that she has been treated fairly so is the company. Me: How can you be so sure that she has been treated fairly? What if she wasn't? Anglo: After the incident took place, we sent in an audit team to investigate the situation. After a lot of investigation and time spent on it, the audit team handed in the report which clearly states that her behaviour did not met with the company's code of conduct. And then the action was taken. After all this time spent on investigation and the information collected, we strongly believe that she was treated fairly. Me: Is she under any obligation with the Ozfriends? Anglo: No, she no longer is under any obligations that would make her to repeat such activity again. She gave in an undertaking that she will not continue activity. Me: Did you follow the grievance procedure? And at what level should have had the grievance solved? Anglo: We did follow the grievance procedure. The grievance was solved where it should have had. Me: If it's so then why was Nicole not informed about the situation in first place? Why didn't the manager or you consulted her? Anglo: There was nothing for her to be explained. The damage was done. Waiting and consulting her meant wasting time. Anyways she should have known as to what was coming on her head when she broke the code of conduct.

Me: Last but not the least. Why wasn't the Human Resource Department informed about the situation. Why was it that Human Resource department had to learn about it from the media and not from the management? Anglo: As I said, waiting and consulting others would have wasted time. It was very important to solve the problem without wasting time. And moreover if the Human Resource Department was notified, there was nothing they could have done. Most probably they , You would have come to same conclusion as ours. Me: Why was the media involved? Haven't you thought of the effect it would have on Nicole? Anglo: Regarding media, It wasn't me who blew the trumpet. Must have been someone else from the organisation. Moreover she was already up on the screen doing the advertisement, so her name and image on media won't have made much difference. Who knows it could have been Nicole herself, who told it to the media for small fame.

COMMENTS: Anglo is arrogant, that is what I can say of him while I was interviewing him. He wants to cover his fingerprints from the issue. He doesn't want to acknowledge the pain and trauma Nicole is going through. The management is playing the blame game. No one is opening up as to who informed the media about the situation. He is not even sorry for the mistakes the management has done while following the grievance procedure. According to him whatever he says or do is right.

Interview with the Audit Team

Me: What did you find in your investigation? Team: We found that Ms. Nicole had breached the very code of conduct of the company, by which we all have to abide. Me: Was there anyone in the audit team who worked with Ms. Nicole? Team: Yes, there was. The manager was one of the auditing member, Me: Do you think the observation, information and evidence collected by your team was good enough to get her disciplined, which she is sentenced for? Team member: Our job is to collect the information and do observations. It's the management who at the end makes the final call, not us. Me: Do you think you were well trained and prepared for the situations like this? Team member: Even though we didn't receive adequate and proper training, we did handled, dug out the information correctly and within the time frame.

COMMENTS: The team was and is ill prepared for any situation to come. They didn't get adequate and proper training. Making decisions based on this auditing teams would be like chopping your own hand off.

Recommendation

Based on all the facts and figures obtained during the interview, I as an HR facilitator would recommend my seniors and the management to re-open the case and annul the irrelevant disciplinary action against Ms. Nicole. Also the auditing team must consist of professionals and not amateurs, the management must train them properly. The matters concerning employee and organisation regardless of their level of confidentiality must remain within the walls of the organisation.

Conclusion

This case wasn't very complex if it was resolved at the right stage and by following the grievance procedure. Since, the management didn't take proper steps in resolving the grievance and their lack of security to keep the matter confidential, the matter became worst. During the period of my interview I found out that Ms. Nicole wasn't treated fairly at all, which in return has left her humiliated and traumatised. She does realise and accepts her mistake but due to the management's carelessness and incapability, the issue escaped the company's vaults and landed on media's door steps leaving her exposed to the world. The management also failed to solve the problem in the first stage. If the management had followed the Grievance Procedure correctly, the grievance could have been solved in the very first stage, with Ms. Nicole's manager. But it didn't happen so because the manager didn't even try to solve it. The issue was just escalated to the senior level management, to the CEO. Also taking into consideration that Ms. Nicole or any member of the Human Resource Department wasn't approached or consulted by any member of the management before taking the disciplinary measures, states the incapability of the management to perform and undertake simple responsibilities of informing the employees, concerned departments and authority. Also the incapability to follow instructions to solve the problem. This altogether raises a big question as to how fairly the management treats its employees? And how effective are their communication and problem solving skills? In Conclusion I would like to say that. The management really needs to communicate with their employees regarding any grievance and dispute, Also the concerned authority and department must be notified before taking any further measures and actions to solve the grievance.