What Happens When HR Fails in a Workplace?

¶ … Good Men to do Nothing No doubt Ms. Dillman should have been more fully trained, both in the fabric shop and in the sheet metal shop. So the root issue here is that Dillman never did receive adequate training, and that is obvious before any consideration of a TNA (training needs analysis). However, when Mr. Pettipas erupted and launched his tirade, the union should have immediately stepped in to assist in this matter, and at that time it would have been entirely appropriate for a training needs analysis.

So the answer to this question is yes, a training needs assessment would be appropriate for Dillman, because while the belligerent, chauvinistic Pettipas was "…to provide her with on-the-job training," he obviously didn't conduct that training very competently -- if at all. The right person to talk to would be the manager of the Human Relations (HR) department; in fact the HR department should have been contacted to make sure that Dillman was being properly trained.

Given that males were given adequate training -- and that it was a male-dominated work environment -- the HR manager should have been alert enough and professional enough to assure Dillman that she would be properly trained. Question TWO: All three of the KSAs should have been part of Dillman's employment experience. Once she was transferred over to the sheet metal shop, it is a given that she knew little if anything about that work.

No indication in the narrative was given that she had ever been prepped or formally trained at all in that shop. The narrative does indicate that was just 20 years old, and that "a number of months passed" in the metal shop so she must have learned on the job albeit "…she often received special attention in terms of help and guidance." She was working in a hostile, male-centric workplace and received "minimal training" in addition to being the victim when Pettipas played his sexist games.

She should have been given background (formal) educational training so she could accumulate knowledge; she should have been given hands-on skills; and her abilities should have been reviewed by HR in a normal, professional assessment process. Question THREE: The commission may have missed the point although training the whole company was not a bad idea. But there were two serious problems in this scenario that could have and should have been handled in-house.

This company clearly lacked effective leadership in the HR department; and moreover, where were the union representatives in this matter? This was obviously a situation in which the HR manager was incompetent or was so locked into the "good old boy" group that he couldn't see the need to carry out his duties involving the training and support of all employees. He should have been trained or dismissed.

And as for the union, one of the reasons employees join unions is for representation in matters of concern, like mistreatment, harassment, and more. It was so clear to everyone near her work station that Pettipas was harassing her; why wasn't there an intervention on the part of HR and the union? Question FOUR: Besides the training that the commission ordered, a review of the HR department should be high on the list of things that needed attention at IMP.

It is all well and good to train people who already know their jobs but the CEO, Mr. Rowe, needed to be put on notice that his HR department was allowing employees.