Policy Changes. The fact that the employee asked for some time to go and attend some personal businesses does concern supervisor George Mann’s; he added on the list of employees’ personal business by sending him/her to pick some stuff that was needed in the operation of the business. He should argue based on the fact that he is a supervisor who has the mandate to give guidelines and also delegate work. He gave the employee the task of buying several small lawnmower parts that the maintenance department required running its activities. Therefore, it means the employee was not out for only personal businesses but also for the department business.
Sally Carter’s should argue supporting the management policies that were dishonored by the employee. Each hour of day counts when conducting payroll for all employees. However, the absence of one individual may cost the business a lot. Therefore, all employees are required to notify the management of their absence either attending personal or department businesses. Sally argued since she would be responsible for all the payroll outcomes and the challenges that are experienced due to employee absence at their respective position.
As Jane Arnold; CEO, I would consider the argument of supervisor George Mann. He is among the leaders who delegate work to the employees and also he has the authority to permit the employee to consider his/her situation. Though the employee didn’t record being absent, he was in one way or the other attending to the business that concerned the maintenance department.
To minimize the chances of such cases of conflict in the future, supervisors should follow each business policy. Advising the employee to record absence is one of the ways of reducing the conflict with the supervisor of both human resources and payroll. Failure to honor the policies is supposed to face the consequences irrespective of the position.