A Case for Compliance: When the Bait Swallows the Fish
“Organisations and workstations can no longer be permitted to be war theatres, and workstations active battlefields…” The Rise and Reign The Workers’ Committee Chairman’s physique belonged in a wrestler’s ring, not on a steel manufacturing factory floor. Top management and the lowest rank alike summed him up in a single word: ‘rough’. It was whispered that his election to the Chairmanship owed less to merit than to the efficient bullying and intimidation he was said to have unleashed upon fellow workers – his own version of ‘democracy in the workplace’. Chronology This steel manufacturing entity’s head office was located somewhere in the diaspora — which meant its top management culture was also, shall we say, ‘diasporian’. It was not their corporate custom to pay bonuses before the Christmas festive season shutdown, a stance squarely at odds with local custom and practice. The Human Resources Manager, for his part, did not see anything amiss with it. As fate would have it, the workers committee Chairman took compassionate leave to attend a close relative’s funeral back home in the communal area he hailed from. Collective Job Action Word spread that surrounding entities had already commenced their end-of-year bonus payments. Word also spread that there would be no such payment at this steelmaking company. Disbelief, frustration and anger moved quickly through the workforce, and the workers struck back — they downed tools and went home. The Human Resources Manager went into overdrive, and by the next day had managed to convince the employees to report for duty. They did. He then requested written reports from those concerned. Coincidentally, that was the same day the Chairman came back from compassionate leave. The Code of Conduct Provisions The Code of Conduct was internal and registered with the Ministry of Labour. One of the categories of serious offences was ‘Refusal to Obey Lawful Instruction from a Lawful Person’. Breaching this provision would result in termination of employment as specified under Section D (i). The Chairman was signatory to this approved Internal Code of Conduct. The Fall The Chairman, too, was requested to submit a report on the Collective Job Action. He flatly refused. A charge sheet was then drawn up, and when he was asked to respond to the charge as required by the code of conduct process and procedure, he refused again. He instead threatened to ‘deal’ with the ‘insensitive and vindictive management of this company’. He let it be known that he was ‘politically connected’, and that the company’s existence ‘in this country’ would soon be over. He did, however, agree to appear at the hearing — promising all and sundry that it would be the platform from which he would finally tell that management off. He also formally indicated that he had no need for representation. Surely, victory was his. The Verdict The Disciplinary Hearing Committee found him in breach of Section D(i). And so the man who arrived as a wrestler left as a cautionary tale. He had not been undone by the management he so despised, nor by his much-advertised political connections. He had been undone by a single sheet of paper he was too proud to fill in — a code of conduct that bore, of all signatures, his own. Therein lies the case for compliance. Process is not the enemy of the worker; it is his shield. The very provisions a man dismisses as petty bureaucracy on a good day become, on a bad one, the only thing standing between him and the door. The Chairman had every protection the code could offer. He simply refused to use them. All he ever needed to do was comply — to formally state that he had been away on compassionate leave when the Collective Job Action took place. If you were the Human Resources Manager, what would you have done?
A Case for Compliance: When the Bait Swallows the Fish Read More »



