 |
Product Search
|
 |
|
Article Search
|
|
|
Resources
| |
|
Home > Is Oral Sex A Sin? What The Scriptures Say About Oral Sex For Christians
We Have Found 2 Products for your search of Is Oral Sex A Sin? What The Scriptures Say About Oral Sex For Christians.
Displaying Items 1 - 2:
Unethical Behaviour Drivers from Emilio Botin Santander Abbey Stephen Hester Luqman Arnold
by Simon King
The high profile Employment Tribunal (ET) case Chagger vAbbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) highlights some of thedrivers of unethical corporate behaviour. The ET thatheard the case found unfairness and race discrimination; itordered Abbey Banco Santander share to re-employ Mr Chagger(in order to remedy the situation without financialcompensation). However, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander sharerefused to comply with the ET's order. The ET then orderedAbbey Grupo Santander price to pay Mr Chagger therecord-breaking £2.8 million compensation to coverhis loss. Abbey Santander share price (the UK retail bankmanaged out of its financial troubles by Luqman Arnold andStephen Hester, and due to be re-branded as Santanderbanking group, also being part of the behemoth Emilio BotinBanco Santander Central Hispano Group) had terminated MrChagger's employment in 2006, claiming the dismissal wasthe result of a redundancy process that had been carriedout entirely fairly. Mr Chagger, on the other hand,claimed that the real reasons behind his dismissal wereunfairness and racial discrimination. Balbinder Chaggerwas of Indian origin, worked for Emilio Botin AbbeySantander shares price as a Trading Risk Controller, earnedaround £100,000 a year, and reported into NigelHopkins.
Some unethical behaviour drivers highlighted by EmilioBotin Abbey Santander price obviously relate to the pursuitof personal aims; the ET discovered that Mr Hopkinspersonally desired Mr Chagger's employment with AbbeySantander share price to be ended and that he had plannedfor Mr Chagger to be dismissed, and he had used thecompulsory redundancy process as a vehicle to dismiss MrChagger.
One such driver of unethical behaviour is the amount ofdiscretion an organisation affords its employees; thehigher the discretion afforded, the higher the opportunitythe employee has for acting in his own interests. The ETthat heard the Abbey Santander case found that theredundancy selection criteria Santander Abbey had allowedMr Hopkins to use in assessing the two employees up forredundancy (of which Mr Chagger was one) were highlysubjective and un-measurable; they allowed Mr Hopkins avery wide range of discretion. The ET criticised Mr Hopkinsfor the manner in which he had exercised his discretion(i.e., for his personal aims). For example, Mr Hopkins hadcriticised Mr Chagger for getting on with work and beingself-reliant, and scored him lower based on that criticism. The ET said that other reasonable managers would considerthese qualities to be desirable in an employee with MrChagger's highly paid and highly responsible position, andscore him highly for. For further example, Mr Hopkins hadcriticised Mr Chagger regarding numerous matters during theredundancy process, matters that Mr Chagger had never beencriticised for before the redundancy process. Thecriticisms Mr Hopkins made were inconsistent with previouscompany appraisals and records of Mr Chagger's performance. The ET ruled that the criticisms Mr Hopkins made wereunfair and not legitimate.
Another such driver of unethical behaviour is the degree ofautonomy in decision-making and action-taking anorganisation permits its employees; the higher the degreeof autonomy, the higher the opportunity the employee hasfor acting in his own interests. The ET found that MrHopkins was entirely single-handedly able to advise AbbeySantander to make redundant one of the two Trading RiskControllers that he managed (of which Mr Chagger was one),was entirely single-handedly able to make Mr Chagger aproposal of voluntary redundancy (which Mr Chaggerdeclined, and never was such a proposal ever made to theother Trading Risk Controller), was entirelysingle-handedly able to assess and score the two employeesup for redundancy, and was entirely single-handedly able toreduce Mr Chagger's assessment scores to ensure he would bethe employee who would be highlighted for dismissal.
A different kind of driver of unethical behaviour is theorganisation's orientation; an orientation towards endresults rather than processes can send the message that'the ends justify the means'. The statutory UK Code ofPractice on Racial Policy in Employment gives organisationsguidance about good employment practices and processes. The ET discovered that Abbey Banco Santander had failed tocomply with those practices and processes. For example,Abbey Grupo Santander had failed to comply with thestatutory guidance regarding Equal Opportunities Training. Mr Chagger had tried to address the issues surrounding hisdismissal directly with Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins,through the grievance and appeals procedures. SantanderAbbey had failed to provide any Equal OpportunitiesTraining to any of the officers it had allocated to lookinto Mr Chagger's issues. Not one officer had upheld MrChagger's issues; the issues were simply thrown out ofhand. As a further example, Emilio Botin Abbey Santanderbanking group had also failed to comply with the statutoryguidance on monitoring practices and procedures. The ETfound a plethora of monitoring failures (too many to listhere), in addition to the failures to consideraterallegations of race discrimination seriously and toinvestigate them promptly.
Unethical corporate behaviours can result in high profileconsequences, as demonstrated by the Abbey Santander case. In 2008, Abbey Banco Santander and Mr Hopkins appealed tothe Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the ET'sfinding of race discrimination; the EAT upheld the originalET's finding that both Emilio Botin Santander Abbey and MrHopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger. At the sametime, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had alsoappealed to the EAT against the record £2.8 millioncompensation award; the EAT accepted their appeal on thecompensation amount and ordered it to be sent back to theoriginal ET for reconsideration. In 2009, the case wasescalated to the Court of Appeal (CA), whose List ofHearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July2009. The hearing records were not available at the timeof writing this article. The 11 Kings Bench Walkbarristers' chambers, who represented Emilio Botin AbbeySantander and Mr Hopkins, had reported beforehand that theCA hearing would be about compensation only, and not aboutthe wrong committed of racial discrimination. That wouldseem to imply that the wrong of racial discriminationcommitted by Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander and NigelHopkins was finalised by the EAT, and that Mr Chagger hadappealed to the CA against the EAT's order to remit thecompensation amount back to the ET stage forreconsideration.
About the Author
bankingsubmityourarticle.com / articles / Sim...ilioilioilioilioilioilioilioilioilioilioiro Botin Abbey Grupo Santander bankingsubmityourarticle.com/articles/Sim...ilio-Botin-66145.php
|
