Some principles key to management ethics are highlighted by the high-profile legal case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), in which the Employment Tribunal made rulings of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination and (following Abbey Santander banking group's refusal to comply with the Employment Tribunal's order to re-employ Mr Chagger) ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Santander share to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking £2.8 million compensation award to cover his loss. Abbey Santander price (the UK retail bank to be re-branded as Santander shares price, and being part of the gigantic Banco Santander Central Hispano Group - BSCH) terminated Mr Chagger's employment in 2006, claiming the termination was the outcome of a fair compulsory redundancy exercise. Mr Chagger, however, believed that the actual reasons underlying his dismissal were unfairness and race discrimination; he was of Indian origin. Balbinder Chagger worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander price as a Trading Risk Controller, earned around £100,000 per year, and reported into Nigel Hopkins, his manager.
Management ethics concern societal expectations about how businesses and their staff should behave.
One key management ethics principle highlighted by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander share is not to pursue one's own interests at the organisation; not to take advantage of one's position, and the power and information it gives one access to, to further one's own interests. The Employment Tribunal that heard the Abbey Santander case found that Mr Hopkins had personally desired Mr Chagger to be dismissed, had used his position to pre-plan that Mr Chagger would be selected to be dismissed through a compulsory redundancy exercise, and had used the compulsory redundancy exercise as a way to achieve his desire.
Another key management ethics principle highlighted by Emilio Botin Santander Abbey is to do as one would be done by; treat others with respect, do not deprive others of the true facts to which they are entitled about a situation, do not use one's power to exploit others in pursuit of one's own interests, or those of the organisation. The Employment Tribunal that heard the Abbey Santander case criticised Mr Hopkins highly for what he had done in the redundancy process. For example, had criticised Mr Chagger for being self-reliant and getting on with work and scored Mr Chagger lower for that in the redundancy exercise. The Tribunal thought that other reasonable managers would consider these to be desirable qualities of an employee in Mr Chagger's highly paid and highly responsible position, and score him higher for. Furthermore, during the redundancy exercise, Mr Hopkins had criticised Mr Chagger for things that Mr Chagger had never been previously criticised for prior to the redundancy process; the criticisms made were inconsistent with past performance appraisals and company records of Mr Chagger. The Employment Tribunal found that the criticisms Mr Hopkins made were not legitimate and were unfair. The Employment Tribunal also found that what Mr Hopkins told the Tribunal during the case hearing was at times inconsistent, and that he also changed the accounts he gave from time to time.
Another key management ethics principle highlighted by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander is always to act within the law. Both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had overstepped the law on discrimination; the Employment Tribunal ruled that they had both racially discriminated against Mr Chagger.
The principle of complying with the law seems so obvious as to be hardly worth mentioning. However, is minimal adherence to the letter of the law enough, or does an ethical approach require a more proactive commitment to the spirit and substance behind the wording of the law? For example, the wording of the UK Race Relations Act 1976 explicitly forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, national and ethnic origins, but does not mention the ground of colour at all. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the original Employment Tribunal's ruling of race discrimination on the basis that Mr Chagger had alleged discrimination on the ground of colour (because he had occasionally referred to colour) and that 'colour discrimination' was not forbidden by the UK Race Relations Act 1976. The EAT noted that Mr Chagger had pleaded his case on the grounds of racial and/or ethnic origins, and had never given up those grounds when he referred to colour also. Hence, the EAT ruled that Mr Chagger's case was covered by the letter of UK law and it rejected Santander Abbey's appeal; the original Employment Tribunal's finding that both Emilio Botin Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger was upheld. The EAT then went further to consider generally the issue of 'colour discrimination'. The EAT concluded that there was an error of omission in the Race Relations Act 1976 in that the wording omitted colour as a ground of discrimination; the UK Act had not been drafted consistently with European law, which does include colour as a ground of discrimination. The EAT went on to advise employers not to play games with legal technicalities with the aim to deny employees the full substantive grounds of their cases.
Also in 2008, Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed to the EAT against the £2.8 million compensation awarded by the Employment Tribunal. The EAT accepted Abbey Santander's appeal on this matter and ordered the compensation to be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. The case was further appealed and escalated to the Court of Appeal (UK's second highest court). According to the Court of Appeal's List of Hearings, the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court's judgement was not available when writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers' chambers, who represented Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, had reported prior to the hearing that the hearing was only to be about the compensation amount and not also about the race discrimination committed. That would seem to imply that the wrongful act of race discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld the original Employment Tribunal's finding that Abbey Santander Emilio Botin and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT's order to remit the compensation to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.
Article Directory : http://www.articlecube.com
