GAMMA PHILIPPINES, INC.

Case Study 1
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The entity involved is Gamma Philippines, Inc., a branch of a worldwide producer of medicine or drugs whose mother company is located in Switzerland. Gamma Philippines, Inc. however does not go into actual making or processing of the drugs. Instead, it reprocesses and repacks drugs shipped from Switzerland, where the actual processing and manufacturing are done. Reprocessing and repacking are jobs done by the company s production department. The production department of Gamma Philippines, Inc. is where the case revolves, headed by the Production Manager, Mrs. Abigail Santos. She is assisted by eight subordinates: a warehouse supervisor, four area leaders, and three quality control leaders. This department is where the drugs like tablets or capsules are repacked one-by-one in labeled aluminum foils. These four areas are classified into Sample area, Trade 1 Area, Trade 2 Area and Redressing Area.Each area having distinct assigned tasks abides by the company policies:a) to reach not lower than six hundred pieces per product or per tablet as the case may be.However, it can be altered to suit the capacity of the employees; b) to settle unsolved issues among employees in closed doors, in the presence of the production manager; c)to be extra cautious during work since medicines are delicate products to handle; d) to pass through daily and at times on-the-spot inspections by the security guards, where being caught from hiding drugs is subject to immediate termination; and e)to abide by the proper breaktime periods of the company. LABOR ISSUE The person subject to ruling is Eula Mojica, the group leader of Trade 1 Area, which is in charge of repacking the drugs for sale in the market. She has been working well in the company for eight years. However, the production manager herself claims the destruction of cooperation among employees in the department created by her subordinate, Eula Mojica. The following appeals were laid by the production manager and other employees within the department: a) the employeecreates an unharmonious work environment among employees through brutal frankness and intrigues that she informs the production manager from time to time, even accusations to some employees without proofs; b) the employee imposes too much workload on her subordinates and even preventing them if possible, from taking snacks on break time hours to surpass the quota; c) with the employee s area (Trade 1 Area) surpassing the quota almost every day, reconciling output from different areas for uniformity has become difficult after, resulting to the extent of Mrs. Santos doctoring the results.Moreover, the challenged imposed by the employee to other area leaders have caused too much workload and pressure among the work teams; d)the employee have causedanother employee, Jorge, a pending case of termination after shedenies the fact of her ordering of a wrong instruction to her group member, Jorge- that instead of labeling the sealed boxes with 50x10, the boxes be labeled 40x10. It is of clear understanding that Eula Mojicahas ethics and conduct issues that reflected potential conflict within the department workplace. With such misconduct,she failed to avoid latentclash of

Submitted by:Marie Sachie Mitsui P. Turiano Case Study 1: Gamma Philippines, Inc. AB Economics III Labor Economics

interest and personal gain or any appearance of a conflict or impropriety, makingher subordinates as well as work team working beyond quotas but suffering within a work environment with destructed cooperation among employees.(The employee preventing her subordinates from taking break time snacks is a violation to human rights, considering one of the companys policies which deal with break times. It must be noted that any worker in order to function efficiently needs rest, which shall assure their health welfare.) This scenario has even resulted to the production managers misdemeanor, by doctoring results. One notable conflict that needs resolution is the latest issue where the person subject to ruling becomes the appealing party, where despite the fact of her mistake, she denies the fact and appeals for the termination of her subordinate, deemed only to follow her orders. RESOLUTION One legal step to resolve Eula Mojicasworkplace disruption of cooperation through misconduct is bythe companys labor policy. The Production Manager as the department head and arbitratorherself must initiate a closed door meeting with all the department employeesincluding the person subject to ruling.The closed door meeting shall aim to address all unsolved issues within the workplace, benefiting both parties- Eula Mojica and the rest of the department employees. Furthermore, with the Production Manager taking no side as an arbitrator must make sure that the meeting shall end up with a condition where all employees will benefit and the company policies and interest will be upheld. Eula Mojica must then be given the chance to correct her misbehavior and must be carefully evaluated by all other employees as agreed upon. This shall serve as her path to disciplinary action, if she breaches the terms that were supposed to solve the workplace conflict. Suspension may be an option if Eula Mojica would still appear to act against the terms already set during the meeting. On the other hand, the second issue is more critical. Jorge as a subordinate has the right to prove himself clear from the accusation and appeal of Mojicaalthough he has the burden of proof.A clearer view of the scenario can be done with more careful investigation, which can be done in favor of both parties by the department head.

Submitted by:Marie Sachie Mitsui P. Turiano Case Study 1: Gamma Philippines, Inc. AB Economics III Labor Economics