CONCLUSION: The " Sydney Water Boils case is very complex. There's a lot of different aspects in this conflict.

Depending on which side you look at, you can find new point of views, new mistakes, answers and questions. The core idea of this report was to see both sides of the conflict and find the most equitable solution to resolve the case. To begin with, there are few obvious mistakes which can be noticed from the start. Ms. Khallouf as an Australian Water Technologies employee is not familiar with the code of conduct contents. Her immediate supervisor and CEO are convinced that after signing a contract and getting a copy of code of conduct employees are cognized with its contents. And they're right , because it's persons duty to be familiar with the conditions which he/she is agreeing to, however on the other hand, they should make sure and double-check the level of knowledge of their employees by providing pilot and training programs to the newly inducted staff. Moreover, it stands out how the procedure was unnecessarily escalated to higher stages of dispute management process. It's clear, that the immediate supervisor of Ms. Khallouf - Mr. Williams, overreacted by writing a disciplinary record and pushing the case into a higher stages. He didn't even try to resolve the conflict on the early level. It wasn't conducted in a professional manner, he was affected by his negative emotions. There's additional aspect, the lack in maintaining confidentiality. The leakage of the information to the media came up and it had negative impact on employee. All of the interviewed stakeholders weren't sure about the source of the leak. Ms. Nicole Khallouf have a few ideas but it's not her duty to investigate it. The people who should protect their employee and be the most interested in finding the culprit are the management of the company and the PR department. The gossips about the case influenced Ms. Khallouf's morale, affected company's reputation and created bad publicity for the Australian Water Technologies. Last but not least, Ms. Nicole Khallouf as well as other employees in the company are responsible for employer branding strategy. Even though her mistake was labeled as an insignificant consequence, she should think twice before engaging in sex hotline commercial. As a personal assistant do dam's safety general Manager she is responsible for her behavior, irreproachable image and work for the good reputation of the company. She hasn't obeyed this unwritten rules and it might be found as a mistake. To conclude with, it would seem at first, that the case is simple, the employee abides by the code of conduct and she deserves to be punished, but during more careful analyse, new aspects of that conflict might be discovered. The dispute procedure wasn't conducted professionally, many mistakes and oversight were made and a lot of people contributed to that. This report touches vary aspects of Sydney Water Boils case and helps in understanding them.