This case study analysis examines the human resources management failures and recommended corrective actions arising from a workplace altercation at Vermillion Countertop Company. The paper evaluates the advisability of HR responses to a conflict between two employees — including issues of sexual harassment, workplace violence, privacy policy misapplication, and inadequate staff training. It recommends reassigning responsibility to senior HR leadership, revising the employee search policy, installing metal detectors, and implementing mandatory training programs covering cultural sensitivity, sexual harassment awareness, and appropriate grievance procedures.
The paper demonstrates applied policy analysis: it moves from identifying a problem, evaluating the institutional response, and proposing specific corrective measures. By framing each recommendation from the perspective of "as head of Human Resources, I would…," the author grounds abstract HR principles in practical decision-making authority, which strengthens the persuasiveness of each argument.
The paper opens with a brief assessment of what Vermillion did well and poorly, then transitions into six numbered recommendations covering personnel assignment, search policy revision, weapons-concealment prevention, HR staff training, employee-wide harassment training, and response to verbal threats. This logical progression from diagnosis to remedy gives the analysis a clear, professional structure suited to a business or HR management course.
The most advisable action initiated by Vermillion was its immediate Human Resources department response to the conflict between Sally Smithens and Raj Shivji, including the suspension of Ms. Smithens. Whereas Shivji's conduct with respect to Sally could have been professionally inappropriate or constituted sexual harassment with liability implications for Vermillion, it did not pose a physical threat of violence in the workplace.
On the other hand, Sally's response was violent and potentially dangerous to the health, safety, and physical welfare of another Vermillion employee. Moreover, a legitimate question arises in connection with the accurate characterization of Raj's gesture; either way, it did not threaten the physical safety of another worker. In the worst-case scenario, Raj's conduct could require training from human resources in the area of distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate conduct in the workplace.
The least advisable action initiated by Vermillion was its delegation of authority to a human resources representative who had no previous experience or responsibility in resolving such issues. The fact that Ms. Sampson burst out laughing at an insensitive comment made by one employee toward the employee with whom that employee had just had an altercation illustrates the inadvisability of allowing an inexperienced HR representative to handle such a situation. Ms. Sampson also misunderstood the applicability of the company's search policy.
As the head of Human Resources, I would have handled the situation myself instead of allowing Ms. Sampson to conduct the interviews and inquiries. An individual whose experience is limited to processing payroll, calculating benefits, and hiring workers should never have been assigned to respond to this type of situation. By bursting out in laughter in response to an insulting comment by Raj toward Sally, Ms. Sampson violated the crucial element of neutrality.
Furthermore, since a legitimate question exists as to whether Raj's explanation for the meaning of his gesture was completely truthful — given the objective input from Don Carter — I would have been very careful not to give Raj any indication that I condoned inappropriate sexual harassment in the workplace. In fact, I might have conducted personal research into the accuracy and truthfulness of Raj's explanation by researching hand gestures common to his culture.
The availability of the Internet provides resources capable of settling this issue definitively by distinguishing an innocent misunderstanding from outright sexually inappropriate behavior. I would have been much more careful to maintain a neutral posture until I was able to determine the truth of the hand gesture.
If my independent research disclosed that the gesture made by Raj was indeed a recognized gesture devoid of sexual connotations in his culture, I would not have authorized the language pertaining to his conduct toward female employees. However, I would counsel Raj to be more aware of potential cultural differences in order to avoid future misunderstandings of this nature. Conversely, if my independent research disclosed that Raj's explanation was likely untrue and that both Sally's and Don's perceptions were most likely accurate, then I would have authorized the same language used in the letter of reprimand issued to Raj pertaining to his conduct toward female coworkers.
As the head of Human Resources, I would never have allowed the implementation of a policy that probably violates fundamental elements of privacy in the workplace. Appropriate site security policies designed to address the theft issue may reasonably include the prohibition of bags and lunch boxes in high-security "lockout" areas. However, searches of employees' clothing and person are excessive responses to that concern. The fact that one employee had already pursued a violation-of-privacy claim against the company arising from this policy would have prompted me to revise it.
As head of Human Resources, I would have provided appropriate training to all HR personnel to ensure they understood that the posted policy statement concerning searches was limited to searches directly related to the theft issue. With proper training, no HR employee would ever confuse the applicability of that policy by suggesting to an employee that it justifies personal searches for other purposes.
If an HR employee had reasonable concerns that a company employee could be concealing weapons on her person or in her personal effects, I would have instructed that HR employee to terminate the offending employee for cause. If the suspicion about concealed weapons was not sufficient to warrant termination, I would have instructed the HR employee to counsel the employee about the issue.
Allowing an employee who poses a legitimate risk of injuring other employees with concealed weapons to remain at the company presents a serious liability issue in the event that employee subsequently harms another employee — including with weapons that may not be readily discoverable through permissible searches. Conversely, subjecting employees to mandatory searches of their person or personal effects would pose a liability issue in connection with violation of personal privacy rights in the workplace.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.