Answer 1 No Fred should not be reinstated.

Fred had not been terminated and released from his duties because of his substance abuse issues but because of persistent absence of work and poor performance issues. These issues could have very well stemmed from his substance abuse issues but he never once used the opportunity of reviews to explain himself and request for help. As an employee, Fred had been well aware of the companys policy and would have also known the implications of his behavior and the companys expectations of a worker. Had Fred been fired just after one warning that would have been unfair, but over a 12month period, company has tolerated his behavior towards work and given him a fair chance of placing him on probation and giving him five opportunities to correct himself and perform better. Company has been fair to the employee by acknowledging the fact that he needed help and ensuring he received it through company insurance and providing him assistance by way of a counselor. Company would be jeopardizing its credibility if it would reinstate Fred by making its policy and displinary measures questionable to other employees. Answer 2
Was the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment? As an employee of a company it is every employees right to claim for insurance from the company. However, in Freds case, he had been relieved from his d uties only after which the company realized his substance abuse issues. Company is highlighted in good light by doing what it did for Fred. It went way out of its way by providing him an assistance program which was not available in the company and ensuring he continued to receive insurance benefits and an unemployment insurance claim. The company by this generous act will motivate other employees of the company to perform better as it ensures that the company has the employees best interest in mind. Loyalty of the employees will also increase towards the company. Therefore, concluding stating that it was way beyond fair that the company helped Fred receive treatment which it probably would have done earlier had they been made aware of his condition. Answer 3

3) Did the personnel director behave ethically toward Fred? Yes, the director did behave ethically towards the treatment metted out to Fred. Fred had been terminated due to certain offences that a company would not tolerate, putting up with such behavior would mean sending out wrong messages to other fellow coworkers. Company would tolerate a sick employee who needed help and would do everything in its limitations to help the employee, but would not tolerate behavior portrayed by Fred such misdeameanour, poor performance despite several warnings over a short span to correct himself, wasting time himself and of others during work hours and paying least importance to his work role by a no show to work. Despite a lot of things going against Fred, the director still behaved fair by helping Fred get the required treatment to help him kick his substance abuse and get sober as well ensured that he received insurance benefits for his treatment as well as unemployment claim.

4) Did he act ethically for his company? Yes, the director acted ethically for his company, as he did what he had to do to Fred by following the companys norms and policies and firing him. There was a process in place that was followed and not bypassed and Fred was issued five warnings to correct himself. Not once had Fred brought up or discussed his substance abuse issue which the company cannot be held responsible for. Director had to follow the process and terminate him when Fred ran out of warnings and probations. However, the moment the director was made aware of the reason behind his lapse in work, lack of attention and poor performance the director helped an ex-employee the same way he would help his current employees. 5) Would it be fair to other employees to reinstate Fred? No it would not be fair to other employees of Sams Saunas to reinstate Fred. The message that would go to the employees would be that substandard performance and disregard towards companys rules and regulations and that would hamper the brand value of the company are tolerated. Fred had committed several offences and therefore had warranted the treatment metted out to him per the policy. Fred had not only put himself in trouble but by wasting others time and disregarding safety rules and adherence to work has definitely put other employees under a pressure situation as well. By not reinstating him the message to other employees is loud and clear of the companys expectations of their employees. Company has maintained its stand as well by providing help to Fred which again helps it build a strong employee-company relationship and increase loyalty of the employees.