David Anderson. the Assistant Manager of a eating house. and Josh. a waiter. were non cognizant of the restaurant’s policy to let attractive immature adult females to be served alcohol without being asked for designation. After being informed by Josh. David took away the alcoholic drink from a immature adult female who could non turn out that she was old plenty to purchase intoxicant. Consequently she created a scene at the eating house. The General Manager intervened to return the drink to the immature lady. and explained to David the restaurant’s policy. Although David did non appreciate the policy. he decided to function the immature ladies without adverting the policy to Josh.
Statement of the job
The employees of the eating house. including the Assistant Manager. were incognizant of a policy at their workplace. In other words. they did non cognize what was allowed and non allowed at the eating house.
Alternate Solution ( Pros and Cons )
Explain “Why” you chose this solution
If cipher complains to the governments about the restaurant’s policy. the above mentioned solution would salvage the repute of the eating house. leting all clients to be satisfied without kicking and shouting every bit did the immature lady whose drink was taken off.
Case Questions
When the employees of an organisation are non cognizant of its policies. they are apt to do any figure of errors. The General Manager was at mistake because he had non explained the restaurant’s policy to David and Josh at the clip that they were hired.
David’s action was appropriate in the state of affairs that he found himself. He was concerned about the jurisprudence that does non let minor people to be served alcoholic drinks. Therefore. he took away the immature woman’s drink. Furthermore. he was non cognizant of the restaurant’s policy to function intoxicant to attractive immature adult females despite their age.
Sing that Josh is still non cognizant of the restaurant’s policy. he may do the same error in future. However. he has already apologized to David about making the job. Hence. he is non expected to do the same error in future.
The General Manager is incorrect non to hold mentioned to his employees the restaurant’s policy before the happening of the job. Had he explained the policy to the employees beforehand. he would hold saved his eating house from an uncomfortable state of affairs. When the immature miss complained and yelled in the eating house. other clients must besides hold felt uneasy about the atmosphere of the eating house. Possibly they would hold reserves in future about sing the same eating house. The eating house would do a loss in that instance. and the duty for the loss would rest on the shoulders of the General Manager – besides at mistake for interrupting the jurisprudence.
