Ethical Dilemmas

Nipay,Maclawren Andre T.

BM3A
 Table of content
 Sweeney vs Balinteer
community School
 CDO Foodsphere
(Disobedience)
Bridgette Sweeney vs Balinteer community school

Facts: Sweeney Plaintiff was born on the 8th July, 1954. She separated from her
spouse after, what I was informed, was for her a very traumatic marriage followed by a
very difficult court separation. She has two children who are now young adults. She
qualified as a teacher in 1975. After qualifying she taught in Dublin until 1979 and in
Lisbon from 1979 to 1980. In 1980 she became a permanent member of the staff of
B.C.C. In 1993.Bridgette Sweeney (accuser) a ordinary school teacher filed a case
against the Board of Management of Ballinteer Community School of harassment and
workplace bullying. Accuser was a senior member of the teaching staff in 2005.
Between September 2005 and September 2006, a series of decisions affecting the
plaintiff, were taken by Dr. Corona (principal teacher of a large community college)
(B.C.C.), in which the accuser was a senior member of the teaching staff. It was not for
this Court in these proceedings to decide whether these decisions were correct or
incorrect,however the court didn’t just decide . A report of an Investigating Officer
appointed found that the accuser had not established that these decisions amounted to
workplace bullying or harassment of her by Dr. Corona and the Bcc. This finding was
sustained by an Appeal Board. The Judge ruled that the Court would not permit the
accuser to challenge these findings in the instant case.

The accuser stated that she declares a one month leave in the date of July 17,
2006,because she was feeling a bit too tired because of her age and the school allowed
the accuser to work at home but the accuser also stated that the school warns her that
their will a a conditions but the school didn’t stated the conditions.The accuser also
stated that the school hired a private investigator and it cause a lot of trauma towards
her because even in the car the investigator followed her and it has discriminate her
private rights. the Dr.Corona(principal) hired a private investigator to follow her
wherever she will be. I found on the evidence of Dr. C., the former and the present
chairpersons of the Board of Management of B.C.C. and the Deputy-Principal of B.C.C.
that Dr. C. was entitled to receive at least some days advance notice that the plaintiff
intended to return to work on the 28th March, 2007. I find that he was in fact entirely
unaware that she had done so until they met accidentally in a corridor some 30 minutes,
on her own evidence, after she had entered the college. On the balance of probabilities
I am prepared to find that this extraordinary behaviour on the part of the plaintiff was
not, as Dr. C. perceived it, a conscious and deliberate attempt on her part to insult him
and to undermine his authority as Principal of the College but was a further indication of
her anxiety about communicating with him. In my judgment her failure to notify D. C. in
advance of her intention to return to work is not explained or excused by her having
proffered a medical certificate of fitness to return to work and a further certificate from
Dr. McMahon covering her absence from work in the previous week, to the Deputy-
Principal in the staff room earlier that morning and, being told by him to give them in at
the office later in the day. I am satisfied on the evidence that apart from her failure to
give proper notice to Dr. C. the accuser return to work did not in fact give rise to any
staffing or rescheduling difficulties in the college on that day. I accept the accuser
evidence that Dr. C. said to her, “What’s this, what are you doing here, who knows you
are back, did you inform the Board of Management”. There can be no doubt but that Dr.
C. was entitled to put these questions to the plaintiff and even though the manner in
which they were put may have been lacking in diplomacy and somewhat brusque,
nonetheless I do not consider that in the extraordinary circumstances it amounted to
harassment of the accuser. I am prepared to accept the plaintiff’s evidence that Dr. C.
spoke loudly on the occasion and even turned red in the face, even though I have had
an opportunity of closely observing him in various circumstances throughout the trial of
this action and I never noticed him becoming red in the face. However, there was
evidence which I accept, from a number of teachers who as members of the Teachers
Union of Ireland had occasion to become involved in these differences between Dr. C.
and the plaintiff, that on a number of occasions in meetings with Dr. C. he behaved with
considerable and in their opinion unwarranted aggression towards them. However,
unlike the case of the plaintiff, these exchanges all appear to have ended amicably and
with handshakes all around. Given the sudden unexpectedness of his encounter with
the plaintiff, his immediate assumption that she was back at work and, his almost
certain anger and resentment at not having been notified in advance by the plaintiff that
she was coming back to work, I think it not all unlikely that Dr. C. spoke loudly and
aggressively as the plaintiff alleges. I do not however, accept that he became physically
aggressive and, “came right up against her” as she claimed in her evidence. I find this to
be improbable. In describing the difficulties which arose in September 2005, in relation
to the provisions of funding for the second year of her degree course, the plaintiff
claimed that during a meeting with Dr. C. in his office, he had become aggressive, had
flung down his keys, had jumped up from the table, red faced and with eyes blazing and
had invaded her body space. However, she made no complaint about this alleged
behaviour at the time. In fact she agreed that things were good with Dr. C. at that time.
On the 28th March, 2007, the confrontation with Dr. C. had occurred in an open corridor
in what appears to have been the most public part of the College, where everything
occurring was capable of being observed by other teachers, non teaching staff, pupils or
even parents of pupils. Regardless of how he may have felt on the occasion, I do not
regard it as credible that Dr. C. if he had any thought at all for his position as Principal of
B.C.C. would have behaved in such a place in the manner suggested by the accuser

I find utterly indefensible, the manner in which the accuser chose to return to work at
B.C.C. on the 28th March, 2007. She must have realized that this was bound to be seen
by Dr. C. with every justification as a calculated and wholly deliberate insult to him as
Principal of the college. I accept the evidence of the Rev. Chairman of the Board of
Management of B.C.C. at the time, and, the evidence of the present Chairperson of the
Board who between them have each 30 years experience in community/comprehensive
schools and large private schools that the manner of the plaintiff‘s return to B.C.C. after
an absence of 209 certified days was “unbelievable and totally unacceptable”. On the
27th March, 2007, the plaintiff’s present Solicitors acting, one must infer on her
instructions or with her consent, sent by Email a letter to the Rev. Chairman of the
Board of Management of B.C.C. at his private address notifying him of her intention to
return to work on the following day. I accept the evidence of the addressee that he did
not receive this communication until after the plaintiff had in fact returned to work. By a
letter dated the 12th April, 2007, he wrote to the accuser Solicitors notifying them of this
and asking why no notice of her intended return to the college had been given to Dr. C.

The Accuser submitted medical certificate for absences which indicated that she was
absent due to work related pressure and the Court found that the Employer should have
known or reasonably foreseen that workplace workplace bullying or harassment of
School carried a important risk of the Accuser suffering mental damage as a result. The
Court found that the behavior of the Principal towards the Accuser was oppressive and
arrogant and abhorred this conduct. The Accuser was awarded for the personal injuries
suffered in the sum of €60,000(3,374,400 pesos) for injuries suffered to date, and a
further €15,000 (843,600 pesos) in respect of personal injuries which may be suffered in
the future. This case highlights to Organizations that an Employer has a duty of care
towards all Employees, in particular Employees who may be mentally fragile. An
Organization must manage and support very carefully an Employee who has submitted
medical certificates which work related stress as a reason for absence, quite apart from
the Organization opinion.

Consequences:

The Court found the school guilty for putting Sweeney Bridgette into a traumatic
condition.The balinteer community school also owed Ms Sweeney a direct duty of care
as her employer, under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, to take
reasonable care to prevent her suffering mental injury in the workplace as a result of being
bullied by other employees Ms.Sweeney was also awarded €85,000 (4,218,000 pesos)
for damages.The school was also affected the creditaion they had in the first place and
also the trust of all the students toward the school not just the student but also the
stakeholder of the ballinteer community school.The school was nearly push to close
because it is not the first time there had been a case against the school.
Personal Opinion

Workplace workplace bullying is a major problem in all aspects not just in the workplace
but also in the community. What we can do is be active in teaching other on how to be a
caring human being.Now we stand up against workplace bullying By raising others to be
brave and firm in facing this behavior,we can help stop workplace bullying as it
happens.I saw many people getting bullied each day we need to help them like what we
have reviewed in Ms.Sweeney case we should value and respect others in order for us
to be respected.The golden rule is don’t do unto others what you don’t want to be done
to you. If you’re being bullied there’s a lot you can do. While different tactics work for
different people, the first thing you should do is try to work it out yourself.Depending on
how bad the workplace bullying is (and as long as you don’t feel at risk, scared or
physically threatened) you might want to try and work it out yourself – as a first step.The
more empowered you are, and the more you can help yourself, the better chance you
have to stop the workplace bully.If the workplace bully doesn’t change their behavior,
that’s when talking to someone else can be really helpful.The workplace bully wants you
to react. Their goal is to take away your power, make you sad and scared. And if you
show them you are not sad and scared, they will often lose interest and they cannot
take away your power.Remember they want to upset you constantly so you get angry. If
you don’t get angry, the workplace bully will lose their own power.Remember that bullies
are human - they eat, sleep and live just like you do. The only difference is that you are
NOT a workplace bully! Bullies act the way they do because they lack the attention or
parental love and nurturing that you have. They are insecure and workplace bully only
to feel powerful.Bullies look for a reaction from you and often lose interest if they aren't
given the satisfaction of getting one. Many workers in the legal industry experience
workplace demeaning, abusive, or authoritarian behavior perpetuated by coworkers or
even employers. Yet studies show that less than one in 10 victims of workplace
harassment let the offending person know that they don't like it.Employees are far less
productive in the workplace when they don't take action against harassment issues.
Several strategies offered by workplace experts and employment attorneys can help
you deal with workplace harassment and workplace bullying behavior. Victims of
workplace bullying should also obtain medical attention through employee assistance
programs if they're offered by the employer, or through their primary care physician.
CDO FOODSPHERE Malvar

Facts: Philippine meat processing company based in Valenzuela , Metro Manila. The
company was founded by Corazon Dayro Ong on June 25, 1975. Its products include
sausages, hams, bacon, hamburger patties, loaves and sweet preserves. Many of its
products are marketed under the CDO brand name. In 2009, the company ventured into
the Canned Tuna and broke the monopoly by introducing corned tuna. In their family
home, she started to produce homemade meat products to sell to her friends and
neighbors. Orders began pouring in as her products gained popularity through word of
mouth. Before long, her family’s residential lot in Marulas, Valenzuela became the site
of a small meat processing plant. One woman’s dream slowly became a reality to
benefit millions of Filipinos. In 1981, Foodsphere, Inc. was established as the producer
of CDO brand of processed meat, with the inclusion of many new product lines.
Empowering her family to reach goals beyond what she had imagined, the company
flourished with the Ong family as its key officers. Eight years later, Foodsphere, Inc.
would acquire a 5,000 square meter plot of land in Canumay, Valenzuela. This would
make way for a new plant capable of producing up to 30,000 kgs of assorted meat
products daily.In 1997, an impressive techno plant on a sprawling 2.5-hectare property
in Paso de Blas, Valenzuela was established. With the rise of a new plant came a major
increase in production. The company was capable of producing up to 100 metric tons of
assorted meat products and 7,000 canned products per day. About a decade later,
Foodsphere Inc. made a major leap with the creation of its mega plant in Malvar,
Batangas. The quick expansion of the company became a testimony of its solidity as
arising establishment.

The problem is that the company was a problem in the community of Malvar
Batangas,because of the pollution not only in the air but also in the water they had not
seen what would be the cause if they dump waste in the Rivers of Brgy.Bulihan Malvar
Batangas the river was connected in the lake of balete and many village was affected
by it because of the smell and also the plastic wraps they had use and just dump it in
the water around July 2012. THE Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) has stopped the operations of a manufacturing plant of meat processing giant
CDO Foodsphere Inc. in Malvar, Batangas because of violation of the terms of its
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).In a statement on Wednesday, the DENR
said CDO was issued with a cease-and-desist order dated Sept. 26, 2019 for
irregularities in its rendering area and waste water treatment facility, which “causes
environmental impacts and poses nuisance to public health and safety.”The CDO
Malvar plant operates a 60,000-square meter manufacturing plant that produces more
than 93,000 metric tons of processed meat products a year.In an order signed by
DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) in Region 4-A Director Noemi
Paradana, the meat processing plant was found to have violated Presidential Decree
1586 or the “PhilippineEnvironmental Impact Statement System” and DENR
Administrative Order 2003-30, particularly Condition 13 of the ECC.Under the condition,
CDO agreed that when the implementation of its project causes adverse impacts to the
environment or poses nuisance to public health and safety, it “shall immediately
suspend its operation until such time that appropriate remedial measures are
effected.”Prior to the cease-and-desist order, the DENR said a notice of violation was
issued by the EMB and CDO was ordered to conduct corrective measures pertaining to
the foul odor as early as October 2018, which the company failed to do.In August 2018,
it said the EMB-Calabarzon received complaints from concerned citizens that the CDO
plant continued to emit unpleasant smell during its operation in the afternoon until
evening. The complaints were validated by a team sent by the EMB-Calabrzon to
conduct an investigation in the area.This is alarming considering that CDO produces
food products, Paranada added, noting that the waste water discharge goes to Alulod
River then to Taal Lake.In October 2018, the official said the CDO was issued a notice
of violation for non-compliance with several conditions stated in its ECC, including
emission of foul odor.An ECC is issued as a Certificate of Environmental Compliance
Commitment to which the proponent conforms with, after the EMB explains the
conditions.While the case is on going many people became a witness also us because
we were living in the same village where the factory was built and operated in a long
period of time.The time when the factory was built you can see and also smell the big
difference when the factory was not yet build on that place you can smell the refreshing
aroma of the forest but after it was built uhmm a year later a foul odor and a water
pollution was slowly building up at first the people of Malvar was not yet alarmed of it
but when the people visited alulod the well knowned river in our place the smell
scattered all over the place not like before it was very refreshing. the corporate social
responsibility (CSR) arm of CDO Foodsphere, Inc. has undertaken several projects
under its “Gabay Kalikasan” advocacy to increase public awareness on environmental
protection and preservation. OFI initiated its first project for the environment on March
2014, in cooperation with Nutrition and Agriculture Office of Valenzuela City. It launched
an urban gardening competition called “Gabay Luntian” in Barangays in Maysan and
Marulas with 10 household participants.Another batch was implemented in Malvar,
Batangas with 15 household participants each, in five barangays. The owner of the
properly-cultivated organic vegetable gardens who have shown their potential as
provider of vegetables to their respective communities were awarded additional tools
and materials to continue their farming activities.Gabay Luntian was also implemented
in schools and rehabilitation shelters in Valenzuela City. A total of 350 participants in
seven batches have participated in urban gardening project which aims to teach
communities in managing an organic backyard garden in limited spaces, as urban lands
are mostly allotted for commercial activities.Ong said Gabay Kalikasan Focuses on
equipping targeted communities with organic backyard concepts so that they can do
their share in helping green back into their surroundings.The purpose of this project is to
teach each family the importance of the vegetable consumption and maintaining a clean
environment in achieving optimum healpOFI, under its Gabay Kalikasan advocacy, also
participated in the “Adopt-an-Estero Project” of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) in partnership with city environment and Natural Resources
Office of Valenzuela. The project aims to aesthetically improve to the condition of the
Paso de Blas creek.OFI adopted Paso de Blas Creek under the project since May 19,
2015 and also participated in the simultaneous creek clean-ups in Valenzuela City. OFI
initiated the Creation of Bantay Creek volunteers in Paso de Blas composed of
community volunteers.OFI also conducted a tree planting activity at Mt. Malarayat in
August 2017 as a part of Malarayat Watershed Conservation initiatives and to support
the National Greening Program of DENR. CDO employee-volunteers participated in the
greening activity.
Consequences:

Big businesses dominate their respective markets and industries. The characteristics of
big businesses include a global presence, thousands of employees, diversified products
and a complex organization structure. Examples include Wal-Mart in the retail industry,
Apple in computer technology and Toyota in automobile manufacturing. Successful
small businesses evolve to become medium and then big businesses.Because of the
cases that was filed against the CDO Foodsphere they were challenge to renew their
business contract because they were giving heachache to the people of Batangas and
they also was fined to pay the villages that was heavily damage by their routine.but the
barangay didn’t stated of how much they were paid by the company because it was a
very private matter for the barangay.the company was also frightened because the
biggest factory in all of the factory they have the malvar cdo company was the biggest
and if it will be closed the first to be affected was them and second all the stakeholders
of the company because the company has many employee for a total of nearly !000
plus employee and it will be closed many people in malvar will be affected. CDO
generally provide high-paying jobs and generate tax revenues for different levels of
government. However, some of them may become "too big to fail," meaning that the
failure of any one of them can cause widespread economic havoc. Problems in just one
operating unit can bring down Cdo, which can lead to job losses and economic distress.
Governments often provide bailouts, which could lead to deficits. In a interview with

Personal Opinion