Docked Time Case Study Problem and Potential Solutions

The case study refers to an incident at the San Francisco based firm Friget Company. A summary of the incident's details follows. The incident refers to a problem where Friget's president Mr. Practo observed that one of the firm's employees, Bob Brancin was late. Practo usually traverses the area between the main shop area and his office each morning to get coffee. During one particular morning, he noticed, over a period of two days, that Brancin was not at his workstation at the beginning of his shift. It should be noted that Brancin was only one of several workers not arriving to work promptly. Practo initially spoke to Brancin about the lateness but was content with giving a warning. The very next day, Practo again observed that Brancin was not at his workstation on time and this time docked him 15 minutes pay. Later that same morning, Practo observed Brancin smoking a cigarette rather than being at his workstation. Brancin explained that since he was being docked, he could spend the 15 minutes anyway he chose. Brancin considered this his personal time. In response, Practo fires Brancin on the spot. This sets in motion the grievance procedure to get Brancin reinstated in his job and with back pay.

The problem, in this case, is staff lateness. As Friget is paying employees for their time it's not unreasonable for the firm's managers to expect that staff will observe the prescribed scheduling rules. If staff members are, repeatedly and without permission, not observing the firm's schedules then managers certainly are within their right to take punitive measures. In this case, it's reported that Brancin was only one of several employees who had been late over the noted two day period. This is not only a clear sign of the employee's lack of motivation but the lack of managerial leadership that allowed this tardiness to continue. There is no indication that Practo spoke to any other employees about this issue. It may be that Brancin was being singled out. This is not to say that the employee did nothing wrong or that other staff members were not also warned. The cause of the lateness problem may be personal circumstances within the lives of the tardy staff members.

There are at least a couple of solutions to this problem and three courses of action open to management. First, it may be helpful for Practo to understand why Brancin, and other staff members, were late on the specified days. Is it possible that the staff is usually on time except on the days Practo observed? It's unclear whether these questions were explored by the president. However, if they were, then one solution would be the institution of more flexible time scheduling. That is, unless there is a strong argument against it, the firm could adjust schedules to better fit the personal circumstances of their employees. It's understood that there might be some limits to this approach. Such limits are speculative in this case but could be based on the demands of production at the plant. But one option is to give staff a 30-minute flextime window. Thus if the shift starts at 8:00 AM, then arrival at 30 minutes within that window is not considered late. In return, the staff members stay at work until the same scheduled work time is completed.

The second solution is to introduce staggered schedules. These could be introduced with or without a flextime component. Thus, there could be a 60 to 90-minute window at which shifts would begin. Staff, based on seniority, would be given the option of which shift better fits with their own personal lifestyles. The length of each shift would remain unchanged. The third solution is to not make any changes and continue to engage the tardy staff members in punitive measures.

Of the three options, the first is likely the most useful. The flexible scheduling can be considered in a band of time that could be extended as long as is deemed feasible from a production standpoint. This band of time would be available to all staff regardless of seniority. The second option, may not work in all cases since not all staff may have the seniority to take advantage of it. The third option would not change anything in the workplace and could lead to more official disputes, and the possibility of increased workplace absenteeism. It may be there are underlying causes that are not being addressed in the staff member’s personal lives.

Work Cited

Deitzer, Bernard A. and Shilliff, Karl A. Incidents in Modern Business. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1975.