Froma legal point of view, it is illegal for the bank executive toreinforce the policy that requires all employees to open an accountwith the bank. That is informed by the fact that the employees have aright to operate accounts in banks of their choice without any formof coercion.
Thebank, on the other hand, is obliged to deposit pay cheques of theemployees in the banks of choice. Any disciplinary action taken forfailure by the employees to comply is illegal and could be challengedin a court of law. Any disciplinary action taken for failure by theemployees to meet is illegal and could be challenged in a court ofjustice.
Onthe other hand, morally speaking, it is significant for the employeesto demonstrate some level of loyalty to their employer. If for anycircumstances it is not possible for them to open an account with thebank, they should politely explain to the management (McShane Steen &Tasa, 2015). That would eliminate any animosity that may emerge fromthe standoff. It is also against professional and personal ethics toallow conflicts develop between them and the management as theemployees will lose more eventually.
Inthe long run, it is best if the company does not implement thepolicy. Instead, it should negotiate with the employees to make themunderstand why it is important for them to open accounts with thebank. Threats and intimidation of the workers would depict the bankin a bad light to all the stakeholders. It should endeavor to makecomprehensive consultations at all times before implementing anymajor organizational policy.
Froma legal point of view, there is nothing wrong with the officeadministrator. She has a right to express what she feels about hernew position. The owner has got no basis for firing her because thelady did not in any way mentions the name of the company. Therefore,the images of the group could have been the rationale behind hersacking.
Morally,it is important for the administrator to demonstrate respect to thecompany as her employer (McShane Steen & Tasa, 2015). Themessages posted on her Facebook page could create an adverse image ofthe business to her friends and could have a long-term negativeimpact on the company. She should be responsible at all times and becareful with the kind of posts she makes on Facebook because itdepicts that she has poor professional ethics, and that could impacton her future chances of securing other positions (Nickels, et al,2013). Employers wouldn`t like to be associated with such anemployee.
Itis best for the company not to fire the administrator but instead,engage with her, so she realizes the long-term consequences of heractions. It is necessary for the owner of the company to consider theage of the administrator in that endeavor. She is just in the processof laying the foundation of her career, and it would be important forher to be guided. Firing her would be too harsh.
Theregional coding of ink is not illegal as the global printer has aright to innovation to protect its market. The company could come upwith any products as long as they are not harming to the clients. Anybusiness strategy aimed at consolidating revenue is legal andencouraged in the development of enterprises.
Morally,the plan by the company is acceptable as the only objective is tocreate and protect market niche. All professional ethics have beenadhered with, and the company is within its right so long as itsaffairs are professional and above board (McShane Steen & Tasa,2015).
However,it would be best for the company to employ other strategies ofprotecting its market niche. The customers may view the plan as a wayof manipulating them so that they only buy the company`s products.They could respond by withdrawing from using the company`s productswhich could be disastrous in the future of the company (Nickels, etal, 2013). The strategy could be viewed as exploitative by most ofthe stakeholders in the industry and could even attract theintervention by consumer protection bodies so that the freedom of thecustomers to choose is protected.
Insuch a scenario, it would be important to notify the competitor aboutwhat is going on. Legally speaking the disgruntled employee is actingagainst the law and should be held to account. It is illegal toreveal the secrets of the company to competitors.
Thatis unprofessional and morally wrong, and it puts the ethics of theemployee into question. That is because they would act in the sameway irrespective of the company they are working for. Anydisagreement with the management would always provide him/her with anopportunity to turn to rivals o endear themselves. That is a recklessemployee whose behavior should not be entertained by any employer.
Itis important that the company respects the secrets of the competitorsto protect its image among all the stakeholders. Anything contrarywould depict the company as engaging in unhealthy competition andwould have negative ramifications for the future of the enterprise.
Nickels,W., McHugh, J., McHugh, S., Cossa, R., & Sproule, B. (2013).Understanding Canadian Business, 8th edition, McGraw-Hill Education
McShane,S. L., Steen, S. L., & Tasa, K. (2015). Canadian OrganizationalBehaviour, 9th Edition, McGraw-Hill Ryerson