I'm unsure if a 2-day suspension was the best first step to take in discipline given

that James could claim he was unaware that what he was doing was not appropriate
due to a lack of clearly written policy. I find the claim to an expectation of privacy to
be hard to support from the fact that employees regularly would use other work stations if
necessary to get the information needed for a client. In fact, this common office practice
should be rolled into the computer use and privacy policy to support the expectation that
offensive or inappropriate material should not be viewed or saved on the computer. Since
it is a severe breach of company culture even if it is not a direct violation of company
policy, I would agree with starting the process at written reprimand rather than minor
suspension. That is using the progressive punishment approach outlined in chapter 10, but
I would prefer infusing the positive corrective action (Berman 2016, 420).
The positive corrective action approach puts the choice in the employees hands and starts
with commitment to improve. If James is given a chance to change his behavior and
consents to the new written policy on use and privacy expectations for company
computers, then he should be allowed to return to work after his suspension. It is
important to not only address the inappropriate use of his work computer, but to also
inform him on his rights as an employee. The National Workrights Institute interpretation
of torts law concerning privacy outlined that an intrusion of privacy by the employer has
historically been limited to recording or monitoring private areas like bathrooms
(National Workrights Institute 2010). Outside of spaces with expectations of privacy, like
bathrooms, it is difficult to prove intrusion. It would be beneficial if he lost interest in a
lawsuit after having his misconceptions on workplace privacy clarified. I would schedule
an opportunity for James to meet with HR prior to beginning his suspension or after the
written reprimand if that was the final course of action.

Surfing the Internet on Company’s Time

It has been apparent that employees violate the use of Internet at work and use it for
personal use other than for work-related functions. National Insurance engaged with their
employees based on trust which James has broken. Exposing his colleagues to
pornography is also inappropriate. I agree that National Insurance lacked a written policy
prohibiting Internet use for other purpose not related to work and that the management
should work on creating a written policy on employee computer and website usage and
have the policy signed by all employees. Also, it’s important to define the extent to
which employees should use the computer and websites since communications officers
are required to use social media. Additionally, the policy should state that the company
has the right to access data on work IT equipment at any given time. I also agree that it’s
necessary to take actions against James and give him time to change his behavior.

It says on your case analysis that James was given a 2-day suspension but it doesn’t say
he was given a 2-day suspension on the case study. It says after two days later James was
suspended for using computer system for nonproductive, personal purposes. I agree with
you that James could claim he was unaware that what he was doing was not appropriate
due to a lack of clearly written policy. It’s also true that the claim to an expectation of
privacy is hard to support as employees use each other’s workstations. As there was no
written policy from the employer, I liked that you have mentioned the positive corrective
action approach as it puts the choice on James with commitment to improve instead of
giving him a suspension. It will be better if James is given a chance to change his
behavior and consents to the new written policy on use and privacy expectations
for company computers and understand his rights as an employee.

Overall, the case study analysis was written and analyzed well.