A Case Analysis on Prashanti Technologies

In partial fulfilment of

Advanced Course in Labour Laws

Submitted By: Group 6

Executive Summary

This case deals with the course of action of Prashanti technologies. Susan Miller, who is the VP
of Internal Audit, had faced a case of Ethical breach in the company. Prashanti was a US$3
billion global technology services company with five business divisions. Mr. Arun Mitra, who
was the FS head of the company, was rumoured to be engaged in an extramarital affair with Ms.
Smita Pai, who was the product manager in the company. One of the employees had been the
whistleblower and had dropped a complaint regarding unfair advantage being taken by Smita
because of her illicit support from Arun. The company sets up preliminary investigations and
finds that the allegation might be true. It sets up an audit to decide the future course of action.

Situation Analysis

In September 2012, the external audit team's report was reviewed by the Vice President
of Internal Audit at Prashanti Technologies, a global company based in Mumbai, India.
PrashantiTechnologies evaluated the external team's audit reports before the board of
directors. Association ethics. There is only one program working on the board. It was
the delicate case of the vice president of the association, the head of the budget
management department... being accused by a dubious informant of having an affair at
work with his subordinates. She is alleged to have taken advantage of her sense of
working environment by proposing demands to the rest of Congress, and he expected
them by presenting her with inappropriate additional obligations. . The ethics committee
had to decide what to do with subordinate leaders, not just the Vice President.

The ethics committee of Prashanti Technologies is expected to rule on the sentences

pronounced against the vice-president and the junior executives, accused of having
directed the activity of the workplace. The vice president investigates reports from
external review teams prior to the organization's ethics committee meeting. The main
motivation of the board is to determine the integrity of the company, with the vice
president leading the money management division of the organization and accused by
mysterious informants of running the operations of the company. . In addition, he also
considers her to be responsible for promoting his subordinates by assigning them
unnecessary missions.

The advisory group had to conclude that this was supposed to be the vice president's
punishment for this workplace crime. The case plan first recognizes the central issue of
the context analysis of the ethical dilemma of Prashanti Technologies A Workplace
Romance and the key partners affected by this publication. This is called the problem of
discriminating between test phases. Then notable devices and models are used. This is
useful for investigating the situation and investigating the course of action for that
investigation. The set of actions includes a recommended framework for redressing this
central issue. You need to understand the opportunity plan for the situation. This can be
done effectively by providing an opportunity to study the course and circumstances of
the event in question. Such a series of events helps to show what the next step in the
organization's tour is. It also helps to understand the dynamic challenges that
organizations face in their situations.

Problem

Ethics Committee had to preside over the case of an affair between Arun Mishra and his
subordinate Smita Pai due to a report by an anonymous whistleblower with evidence of
them breaching the code of conduct of Conflict of Interests and Equal Opportunity by
the External Audit team. The Committee had to decide the disciplinary action that
needed to be taken to punish the misconduct in order to reinstate the seriousness
regarding adherence to the Code of Conduct by the employees

Options

1) Fire Arun and Smita on the basis of evidences from the External Audit team
2) Ethics Committee should allow them to defend their case by giving them more
time to counter the evidence already available.
3) Don’t fire Arun and Smita as both are key assets to the company, suspend them
and punish them with a severe disciplinary action.

Criteria for Evaluation

1. Company values should not be compromised with.
2. Setting the correct example in front of the other employees.
3. Following the code of conduct.
4. Companies' productivity
5. Credibility of Ethic’s company's decision in front of other employees.

Evaluation of Criteria

Option 1: Firing Arun and Smita.

Upon this decision the company's new initiative to create a workplace free of
harassment would not get compromised. From the ‘Conflict of Interests’ in Prashanti’s
code of conduct:

b) “ Award of benefits such as increase in salary or other remuneration, posting,

promotion or recruitment of a relative of an employee of Prashanti where such an
individual is in a position to influence decisions with regard to such benefits.”
c) “The interest of company can be compromised or defeated”

Arun had relations with Smita and was providing him unfair benefits in terms of
promotion. He committed to offer her a virtual promotion. Also because of this
relationship, the interest of the company was getting compromised as Laxman left the
organization and Praveen Yadav’s position was jeopardized.
Prashanti has been following this process and employees have been showing faith in it.
The organization fired 115 employees in the past and therefore, a correct example
needs to be set as it would affect the trust of the employees coming forward with the
complaints.
Firing the senior leaders of the financial services division would hamper the productivity
of the organization.
Since the rules were broken, if the Ethics committee does not fire these employees,
then it would seem as if they are practicing favoritism and therefore will negatively affect
their credibility in the organization.

Option 2:

In this option the company's productivity will not be affected and it would be in line with
the code of conduct of the company which provides an opportunity to be heard.
Company would be fair to them in giving them a chance but it might not go well with the
employees.
Credibility of the ethics committee will also not be hampered as a legal and fair
procedure is being followed before coming to any conclusion. It will also set an excellent
example that even if the person accused is a VP still action has been taken against the
person irrespective of the position hence, proving that everybody is equal in the
company.
This would also encourage other employees to voice their concern without fearing the
person or position.

Option 3

In this case both of them would be punished heavily and this would be fair for all the
other employees. The company's code of conduct might be maintained and they would
be able to set a good example in front of all the employees. But this might affect the
productivity of the company since Arun and Smita might leave the organisation. It might
hamper the credibility of the ethics committee because as per the previous records
around 115 employees have been fired on the grounds of unethical conduct, thus just a
severe punishment would not be sufficient to convince other employees of the fairness
of the decision as their conduct is a serious misconduct as per the conflict-of-interest
clause under company’s code of conduct.

Recommendation:

As per the evaluation of the options above, Prashanti should opt for the second option
and terminate the accused employees, if found guilty to reinforce its objective of
maintaining a workplace environment free of bias and all other forms of harassment.

Action Plan:
Going by Prashanti's Code of Conduct of providing equal opportunity to all the eligible
employees, the right to be heard, and the decision to be made on merit, both the
accused Arun and Smita should be provided a chance to defend themselves against the
evidence collected by the audit team. A show-cause notice specifying the charges
leveled against the accused should be sent to both the parties, seeking an explanation
followed by a consideration of explanation. If not found satisfactory, a full-fledged
enquiry into the matter should be held. A meeting should be conducted with all the key
stakeholders, the ethics committee, the senior VP of product management, HR, and the
accused. They should be confronted with the evidence and asked to provide an
explanation. Failure to explain the same should result in termination.

This would set an example that everybody is equal, and misconduct would result in
strict action irrespective of the position held by the person. It would also strengthen the
trust of employees in the ethics committee's credibility and encourage them to come
forward with their complaints in case of unethical workplace behavior.