Punishments in the Public Sector Employment Sphere

Abstract

In public service, people interact with others the most, hence facing punishment for their mistakes.  In this regard, many public sector commissions and government employers worldwide have punishments set out for public sector employees. These punitive actions are often legal statutes and times internal punishment clauses that apply to officers who breach general truth and ethical code of conduct. The biblical worldview of punishment is that it is based on judgement. According to Revelation 3:19, God Punishes and Rebukes those He loves. The Bible calls on people to be earnest and to repent to be forgiven. All the same, the Bible offers different scenarios around humans where punishment is a common ideal. While some laws may not apply to their dismissal, they ensure that all public offers to hold their mandate to the public respectably. They are the necessary reminders that while public officers do have some power, they must act in the people’s interest at all times.

Key Words: Punishment, Public Service, Workers, Leadership, Management, Employer, Government, Law

Introduction

            Working for the public sector implies that one has a duty to their employer and the public. As such, people working as public servants are often held to the highest standards of dignity and expectations (McNamara et al., 2021). It is imperative to ensure that they follow the law effectively. There are issues around the punishments that often should be meted out to those in breach of the law. According to Section 53 of the United States Code of Public Conduct, every public officer is held to their job description and expectation (Melossi, Sozzo, & García, 2017). Government officers must be willing to abide by laws that limit their influence on public matters. As such, they must serve under the general mandate instead of making questionable decisions concerning their role in the public sector. In this regard, punitive action is stipulated for such breach.

Section 28 of the United States Code discusses conduct and argument of cases related to public servants. These public servants are often required to appreciate the different efforts by the United States government to promote the efficient roles in enforcing government mandate on the people according to the law (Tweedie et al. 2019). General rules and the United States Code must apply to all the officers within the executive arm of the government in a similar manner. The legislature is held to ethical provisions and other legal requirements set by the State and Federal government statutes (Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002). It is important also to appreciate that the government is very keen on ensuring that there is little involvement of the judicial arm of the government in regulating employee conduct. All the while, the judiciary must offer punitive action where the matter in question regards an issue of crime (Marchenko, Akimova, & Akimov, 2021). The rest of this essay looks at the point of punishments in the public sector employment sphere.

Background on Punishments

In the book of Proverbs 3:11-12, the Bible calls on people not to despise the Lord’s discipline or resent his rebuke. Indeed, the Lord disciplines the people he loves, and as a father, he delights in his children. Public sector service punitive measures were prescribed for acts such as tax evasion and crime. The imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome by a group or individual would be meted out by an authority to ensure the enforcement of laws. These ranged from child discipline to criminal law enforcement measures (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2018). As such, issues such as the development of policing authorities were based on the desire to enforce the law and even enforce punishment for the breach of law and public trust. It is indeed punishments that led to trials and the imposition of capital punishment for crime. Over time, incarceration became a standard punitive measure to deal with vagrancy in society.

 

Philosophy of Punishment

In a philosophical context, punishment is an issue considered necessary to ensure that society is brought to some form of order. An authority often imposes punishment. As such, it gets the consensus of democracy and the backing of the organization. The punitive nature of the acts described must also be just and ensure that they seek to offer the appropriate retribution instead of being overbearing on the individual (Gurusami, 2017). Punishment is also an issue that leads to some loss on the offender. In this regard, it becomes necessary that the offending person will likely feel a significant loss and thus be discouraged from the particular act they did to deserve the punishment. Punishment is also meant to be offered for a specific offence or infraction. The people being punished must be associated with the crime or act and not be doubted as such.        

Psychology behind Punishment

            According to Tweedie et al. (2019), punishment is more restrictive, unlike other forms of public and social contexts. Punitive measures need to be reinforced into an operant conditioning categorization of issues. For instance, instead of helping people learn how to obey the law by punishing them, it may help to reward them for following the law. There is a need to ensure that the law of punishments can handle people differently. Some criminal offenders are inclined to vile acts from their nature and psychological conditioning.

On the other hand, there are cases where the punishment is based on the failure to meet standards that would have otherwise led to a reward. Public sector employees, for instance, can be punished for breach of contract and breaking the law. On the other hand, the law can reward the same officers for performing well beyond expectation. Punishment must thus be seen to go either way.

Socio-biology Issue of Punishment

            While exploring the socio-biology aspect of the punishment, it is essential to look at punishment as a retaliation to an issue such as a blunder or concern over the moralistic aggression that a person is associated with such a deed. In many contexts, punishment has been observed in the whole animal kingdom, especially among species of social animals. Retaliation happens when individuals go beyond the bounds of cooperation in their social setting (Enns & Ramirez, 2018). The government can also use the issue of punishment in the animal kingdom to appreciate the role it plays among the public sector employees. For instance, public sector officials can be considered to belong to a group within a social context. They are expected to exercise similar behavioural traits and considerably make efforts to handle their aspects of development. It is necessary to ensure that punishment is used to bring someone back to the pack and belong to a social and cultural grouping instead of being used to chase them away.

Employment Sector Punitive Action

Job Demotions

In Baragar v. State Farms Inc, the high court determined that the plaintiff, Eugene Baragar, had been wrongfully demoted. The employer was thus required by the court to reinstate and offer compensation to the victim (Justia.com). Recommendations for demotion are based on poor performance, misconduct, and restructuring due to redundancies associated with the role (Melossi, Sozzo, & García, 2017). Demotion is one of the most challenging approaches in employment punitive action, as the defendant can quickly challenge it in court. Employment relations courts often form part of the high courts of many nations across the world. They play the role of determining whether actions such as demotion are justified and legally acceptable. Hence, the employer needs to show justifiable cause for the demotion and ensure that they promote measures to deal with the issue (Marchenko, Akimova, & Akimov, 2021). Demotion must thus be seen as a justifiable cause of action and a result with few options.

Fines and Salary Deductions

According to the Employment and Labour Laws and Regulations 2021, fines and salary deductions are acceptable under certain conditions (Nair, 2020). The first concern is a breach of the terms and conditions of employment. The employee is also exposed to fines for industrial action that the Labor Relations Tribunal is not sanction. Employees can also face penalties for cases of discrimination at the workplace. As such, they need to be ethically astute in their roles (Budig, Hodges, & England, 2019). The other concern that often leads to fines and salary deductions is the matter of extraneous circumstances on the employer. For instance, the COVID pandemic made it difficult for many employers to retain their workers. They could only do so by having the same employees accept salary reductions for the businesses to continue working (Chung & Van der Lippe, 2020). the government realized the same issue in the public sector in most governments around the world.    

Suspension from Work

            Suspension from work is a punitive measure that includes having employees sent home from work. In this regard, the employee may even receive their full payment.  In Harrison v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, the High Court in London issued an injunction for suspension from work due to lack of justification for the action (Simmons, 2020).  Indeed, said punishment is only allowed if there is reason to further investigations on an issue (Melossi, Sozzo, & García, 2017). Suspension from work is seen as a more humane choice to terminations without cause. Employees need to be given the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to appear before a tribunal to determine their fate within the department or parastatal. The suspension must be part of the employee handbook, and indeed, it ought to offer the terms for suspension and the aftermath expectation from the suspended employee (Gurusami, 2017). Suspended employees are expected to vacate their offices often for a period of two weeks to three months, pending a court hearing.

Contract Termination

            The most effective form of punishment in public sector employment is contract termination. A contract termination decision is commonly made by the board comprising the public service employer. The reasons for contract termination are often offered to the employee. At the same time, the employee is provided with an opportunity to contest their termination in a labour relations court. It is crucial to appreciate that contract termination must be the last result after all other efforts have failed. The employee, for instance, needs to have been warned and suspended before such action (Akimova et al., 2020). Contract termination can lead to total compensation on the employee’s contract and even offer a recommendation for alternative employment based on a non-compete agreement or non-disclosure agreement. It mainly depends on the reason for termination and the impact on the employer. All the while, it is necessary that contract termination is handled sensitively and that legal counsel is applied where necessary.

Legal Basis for Punitive Action

Retribution

In criminal justice, retribution is seen as a response to criminal behaviour. It is the determination that the law focuses not only on the perpetrator’s punishment but also on the compensation of affected persons. For instance, public officers who engage in corruption need to face retribution. At the same time, they need to return the stolen loot, which is used to compensate affected public members (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2018). Retribution ensures that the prosecution can reach a deal with perpetrators of financial crimes to return the money in exchange for reduced sentencing. It is also essential to appreciate that retribution may not offer the justice the victims deserve. All the same, it gives hope that public servants may not repeat such crimes in the future due to the significantly punitive repercussions faced (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2018). The government should use retribution to balance scales of injustice so that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant faces injustice before a court of law.    

Deterrence

In criminal justice, deterrence is meant to showcase that the threat of punishment will prevent or discourage some people from committing acts of crime. Deterrence is used in penology to offer the highest form of punishment to persons who significantly breach public trust and make it difficult for the jury to find cause for their actions or any reasoning behind their behaviour (Budig, Hodges, & England, 2019). One good example of deterrence is offering life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to sexual predators in the public sector offices. As such, persons in higher offices and power will commonly feel that they can no longer get away with such indecent human behaviour. It makes it necessary that there be a way to adjust office policies to ensure that government institutions do not hire registered sex offenders (Flanagan, 2019). Deterrence is hence expected, especially among people with the highest levels of public trust.     

Rehabilitation

            Every criminal was once a member of the society that could be trusted and operate efficiently among all persons in the community (Tremblay, Vandenberghe, & Doucet, 2013). It is essential to appreciate that once a person commits a criminal offence, they are seen as outcasts in the community. Criminal rehabilitation is a way to ensure that the community can accept the individual again and maybe even trust them over time (Marchenko, Akimova, & Akimov, 2021). It is vital to appreciate the role of rehabilitation among persons who can be seen as reform. They need to be given a chance to change their behaviour. One typical example is where public sector employees are sacked for drug abuse and addiction. Rehabilitation can ensure that they cease using the drugs and become functioning members of society (Gurusami, 2017). Hence, the government should consider rehabilitation to be an integral part of the penal system in the public sector employment sphere.

Incapacitation

Incapacitation is the other role of punishment in the criminal justice system. Rehabilitations can work best to deal with people who can be accepted back in the community. On the other hand, incapacitation ensures that people who had access to resources and abused them never get the same opportunity. It is essential to incapacitate people whose actions bring suffering onto others (Flanagan, 2019). Incapacitation also ensures that there is little if any involvement of corrupt people and serial criminals in roles that the community can consider to offer influential decision-making capabilities. Incapacitation is more like ensuring that the person, although living within the community, cannot harm members of the community (Tweedie et al., 2019). Incapacitation is vital to reduce certain aspects of the office bearers from ever being in a position to harm the employees that serve under them. Laws can easily enforce incapacitation with significant punitive restrictions.     

Importance of Punitive Action

Incarceration Incapacitates the Offender

            Incapacitation of the offender through incarceration is a common approach to dealing with corrupt public members (Bayrak Kök, 2020). Ensuring they are in jail for their actions means that they cannot access the money they pocketed and continue their corruption. In many cases, anyone can argue that some public service members are better off behind bars. Influential and corrupt leaders with cartels can be dangerous to the community. A punishment that incarcerates them; minimizes their influence (Enns & Ramirez, 2018). They need to have reduced powers and roles in the community to have a lesser capacity for harm. The offender will also feel incapacitated and with less power than they originally had. In this regard, they will want to make an effort to regain their previous social status through retribution (Chung & Van der Lippe, 2020). Incarceration can hence be considered an effective way to deal with crime in the public service.

Rehabilitation Alter’s an Employee’s Behavior

Employees who are rehabilitated will often come back with new positive attributes in their character (Akimova et al. 2020). They need to ensure that the previous issue that called for their rehabilitation in the first place; is handled. There is also a critical understanding that rehabilitation for drug abuse differs from those of crime and vagrancy. Essentially, the eventual impact of repair ought to ensure that culprits can restore trust from the public either in an institution or person (Enns & Ramirez, 2018). Efforts at rehabilitation similarly need to be public. They need to deal with numerous issues associated with the individual’s impact on the community either socially, economically or politically. All the while, the rehabilitation efforts need to be done in a manner that also deters a relapse on the individual. The same person should be accorded an opportunity to start afresh and continue to play a role in the same community they betrayed.

Crime Prevention and Retaliation

Crime prevention and retaliation are essential contributions of punitive action. For instance, retaliation of a swift nature to corrupt reports in a government institution will prevent further crime in the institution (Chung & Van der Lippe, 2020). It is critical to ensure that the government can avoid the loss of public funds during investigations. So as to determine that investigators will recover public money, suspensions and house arrest for senior government officials should be punitive measures imposed on officers who considerably breach public trust (Akimova et al. 2020). The evidence leading to such investigations need not be immense. If anything, suspicious activity with some level of proof should encourage opening a probe onto the matter and seeing it through while the affected officers are suspended. Preventing crime should thus be given priority compared to retaliating for a criminal offence that has already taken place.    

Financial Constraint on the Offender

Actions on public offer to deter crime or even criminal justice evasion often include freezing financial assets. Ensuring that public officers involved in financial syndicates have their accounts frozen is very important in investigations (Chung & Van der Lippe, 2020). Such acts provide that the culprit has some financial constraint that helps them cooperate with the investigating agencies. It is crucial to ensure a realistic approach to go about the freezing of financial assets. The law is apparent on how to recover money that has been acquired through illegal means. All the while, it helps to ensure that there are measures to limit the access to financial resources by the exact criminal offers (Flanagan, 2019). These actions need to be considered to the point that there is a fundamental administration of justice even while preventing crime at all costs.          

Possible Solutions in Employment Discipline

            Employee discipline needs to be handled by every government institution. Instead of waiting to punish the employees, it is better to ensure that there are measures to enforce discipline in the first place. One common aspect for government institutions is to implement ethical training programs (Gurusami, 2017). There is a need to ensure that employees attend seminars on ethics and ensure that they get the appropriate training on ethical behaviour while working for the government. The government needs to ensure that ethics are enforced in situations that call for personal intuitions by government employees. It is practical, for instance, to ensure that there is a practical matter associated with ethical training programs. Police should involve the community in reporting cases of behaviour change among employees to help them reform before they get to the point of being punished. It is essential to give every government officer the benefit of the doubt (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2018). At the same time, it is critical to ensure that the same individuals are discouraged from dealing with acts of corruption that promise quick enrichment. Their moral compass should thus never be in doubt as they are working for the government.

Ethical Considerations

Leadership

Leadership in public sector institutions is often an ethical dilemma for many persons accorded with the opportunity to serve in such capacities. Leaders will usually command a lot of political power and dominance. At the same time, they have the autonomy to decide on many matters with little or no consultation. Ensuring that decisions are based on normative ethics is a good way for the public service leader to avoid issues with their leadership and the genuine concerns expected of their involvement in the institution (Budig, Hodges, & England, 2019). It is crucial to have leaders pass moral and ethical tests before private citizens can even hire them. Making sure that leaders are held to the highest levels of ethical standards minimizes corruption at the workplace and other concerns that may dispel public trust in the institution. It is the role of the persons at the helm of these institutions to ensure that they enforce such values and leadership.

Workplace Culture

            The workplace culture needs to be as professional and inclusive as possible. Toxicity at the workplace can be a significant ethical concern for many people working in the public sector. There need to be laws to punish employees who promote lateness, dereliction of duty, and even absconding work altogether. All the while, the culture of procrastination and mistreatment of visitors should be an issue that needs to be checked (Melossi, Sozzo, & García, 2017). Every public office needs to be as attractive and accommodating as possible to the individuals visiting and seeking services. The same individuals need to audit the role of the public service officers and how well they execute their mandate. In so doing, it calls for a desire to ensure an authentic culture that handles workplace decisions (Akimova et al., 2020). The next concern is to remove toxic employees from the public service and ensure that they do not negatively influence the rest of the staff.

Discrimination and Harassment

            Discrimination is the first issue that needs to have a zero-tolerance policy in the public domain. Discrimination can be of different forms, including religion, gender and race. Public service officials need to ensure that they avoid all forms of discrimination. They also need to appreciate that discriminatory practices only lower the standard of service in the institution. The public should report any acts of discrimination for there to be some action taken. All the while, the people who instigate the acts of discrimination ought to be fined, jailed, and dismissed (Akimova et al., 2020). A culture of discrimination can significantly lower public trust in a government officer. Harassment of employees at the workplace should also be an intolerable act. Any investigation that can expose such acts needs to be done quietly, and effective action is taken to deal with the concern. It is such a reality that many public officers are accustomed to in the developed world.

Use of Public Technology

            Given that most governments in the 21st century use technology to automate their services, it is essential to assess the role of technology in public service. Officers need to ensure that they offer the appropriate consideration for the use of technology at the workplace. In this regard, it is essential to limit the usage of public internet resources and servers for personal gain. Some of the abuse of office issues in using government resources regard the use of the said technology to attack government records and databases. Acts that can be considered as cyber terrorism and bullying in the public sphere need to be dealt with considerably (Tweedie et al., 2019). It is the role of the government to track and bring the perpetrators of such acts to book. All the while, it helps to ensure that the government is keen on securing its technology in such a manner as to prevent any attacks from internal cyberbullies.

Recommendations

The Bible is clear on the issue of punishments in that they are Godly. Persons who are found to have breached public trust must be held to account and accept punishment. In order to improve on the penalties and punitive action in the public sector employment sphere, it is crucial to consider several issues. The first is that there are already measures in place to deter illegal acts from public sector employees. The second consideration is on the limited power of the law to interfere with some of the public service departments and offices. The third is the autonomous nature of government leadership and the immense power that promotes impunity among the leaders. Here are a few suggestions that can lower abuse of office in government installations considerably;

More Punitive Laws on Public Service Officers

While most laws on handling public officer disciplinary issues are standard, it is important to adjust them. There is a need for a consistent effort by the public service commission to deal with the loopholes that make corruption and the many other ills thrive in the public service. This regard calls for an investigation and eventual implementation of more excellent punitive laws in the public service (Chung & Van der Lippe, 2020). Many deterrent regulations in the past have seen many public officers face stiff consequences for their actions. Laws must constantly review them to address challenges in the modern public scene. All the while, anyone joining public service needs to see the impact of corruption and mismanagement of resources and how the police can take swift action to bring them to justice (Melossi, Sozzo, & García, 2017). Such are the measures that will discourage public officers from their vile and unpopular acts.

Public Service Track Record

            The government should do managing discipline in the public service with a many look into the public service track record (Budig, Hodges, & England, 2019). In this regard, it is critical to deal with issues of a public service nature, such as the previous cases of mismanagement and corrupt practices by a long-serving member. Indeed, one way to look at the issue is to ensure that an individual’s track record concerning the public service roles is assessed properly (Tweedie et al., 2019). The individual can then be graded in terms of how they handled their positions while in public service. In so doing, it makes it easier to eradicate corrupt persons from public office. These officers should be exposed and even never allowed to hold any role in public service in the future (Henrich & Boyd, 2001). Actions of such a nature can significantly reduce the number of punishments needed to enforce discipline in the public sector.

Annual Review of Discipline Manuals

            The discipline manuals used to engage public officers legally are often used for decades without review. Some of the laws inside are outdated or inapplicable, especially in a public domain that relies more on technology than people (Gurusami, 2017). It is vital to update the laws regularly and ensure that they are adjusted to meet the current requirements of the public. Laws need to be enforced in a manner that protects the will of the people (Podsakoff, Podsakoff, & Kuskova, 2010). Indeed, reviewing the public service discipline manuals every five years is an excellent way to deal with the impact of technology on the job market, especially the public sector employment. Discipline manuals can speak considerably to the nature of commitment the government and interested parties have in the discipline of the public service in a country (Enns & Ramirez, 2018). No government should be seen to condone acts of corruption that can otherwise be considered loopholes in the discipline manuals of the government institutions.

Internal and External Fraud Investigations

Fraud investigations reveal the true nature of corruption and other crimes associated with government officers in the public scene. It is necessary to appreciate that while audits are done regularly in most public sector institutions, they are hardly sufficient to deter corrupt practices (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2018). External fraud investigations are the best approach to ensure that public sector employees are committed to being dutiful and honest in their mandate. These investigations need to be commissioned by the government and interested parties such as the parastatal boards to look into suspected financial misconduct. Eventually, it makes more sense to have audits are done regularly and their reports representing the actual state of the institution. There is a need for public sector institutions to ensure that they commit to these audits at all times (Marchenko, Akimova, & Akimov, 2021). Essentially, audits of such a nature are vital for the success of the institution.

Conclusion

Punishments in the public sector are essential to promote discipline among public sector employees and officers. It is such discipline that reduces cases of corruption and incompetence in delivering on their duties. The necessity for public officers to be qualified in their duties is not lost because they will always need to be appointed based on merit. All the same, it is even more important to appreciate that public officers consistently do break the law. While some do require simple dismissal, for others, it is the punitive actions to deter corruption and discourage such acts in the future that is necessary. Just like any other employer, the public service commission can reprimand its employees. Some laws limit the extent to which the officers can be allowed to make unfavourable and questionable decisions while in public service. Regardless, the onus is on the government to completely deter them.

Public service is a badge of honour for any individual and an evident appreciation of the role of the civic community in entrusting an individual with shared resources. Officers who serve in the public domain, from the president of a country to the last job group in the public service, need to take their responsibilities seriously. Punishment is essential to have them at a level where they cannot breach trust anymore. Some of the punitive measures currently in place across the political spectrum are not as effective. Regardless, there is always an effort to set new laws based on precedence. Such laws make it possible for the public sector employees and officers to respect the role of the government and other institutions they serve. It is also critical that they ensure adherence to ethical considerations that can effectively improve the public trust in institutions.

  References

Akimova, L. М., Litvinova, I. F., Ilchenko, H. O., Pomaza-Ponomarenko, A. L., & Yemets, O. I. (2020). The negative impact of corruption on the economic security of states. International Journal of Management11(5), 1-10.

Bayrak Kök, S. (2020). A Research Between Organizational Culture and Organizational Power in the Context of Denison Organizational Culture Model. Istanbul Business Research49(1), 60-85.

Budig, M. J., Hodges, M. J., & England, P. (2019). Wages of nurturant and reproductive care workers: Individual and job characteristics, occupational closure, and wage-equalizing institutions. Social Problems66(2), 294-319.

Chung, H., & Van der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible working, work-life balance, and gender equality: Introduction. Social Indicators Research151(2), 365-381.

Enns, P. K., & Ramirez, M. D. (2018). Privatizing punishment: Testing theories of public support for private prison and immigration detention facilities. Criminology56(3), 546-573.

Flanagan, F. (2019). Theorizing the gig economy and home-based service work. Journal of Industrial Relations61(1), 57-78.

Gurusami, S. (2017). Working for redemption: Formerly incarcerated black women and punishment in the labour market. Gender & Society31(4), 433-456.

Harrikari, T., & Rauhala, P. L. (2018). Towards Glocal Social Work in the Era of Compressed Modernity. Routledge.

Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2001). Why people punish defectors: Weak conformist transmission can stabilize costly enforcement of norms in cooperative dilemmas. Journal of theoretical biology208(1), 79-89.

Justia.com. Baragar v. State Farms Inc. Justia US Law. Retrieved from; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/860/1257/2159643/.

Marchenko, A., Akimova, L. M., & Akimov, O. O. (2021). The current state of ensuring the effectiveness of coordination of anti-corruption reform. Ad Alta: Journal of interdisciplinary research, (11 (2)), 78-83.

McNamara, T., Meloso, D., Michelotti, M., & Puncheva-Michelotti, P. (2021). ‘You are free to choose… are you?’ Organizational punishment as a productivity incentive in the social science literature. Human Relations, 187(2), 672-789.

Melossi, D., Sozzo, M., & García, J. A. B. (Eds.). (2017). The political economy of punishment today: Visions, debates and challenges. Routledge.

Nair, R. S. (2020). Core Self-Evaluation as a Predictor of Meaningful Work and Altruism: Perceived Organizational Support as a Mediator. Journal of Organisation and Human Behaviour9(1&2), 1.

Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., & Kuskova, V. V. (2010). Dispelling misconceptions and providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behaviour. Business Horizons53(3), 291-303.

Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002). Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device. Evolution and Human Behavior23(3), 203-231.

Simmons, S. (2020). High Court grants injunction lifting employer’s suspension. Simmons & Simmons. Available at: https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck5sdbsvx1n800963dbx920dr/high-court-grants-injunction-lifting-employer-s-suspension

Tremblay, M., Vandenberghe, C., & Doucet, O. (2013). Relationships between leader-contingent and non-contingent reward and punishment behaviours, subordinates’ perceptions of justice and satisfaction, and evaluation of the moderating influence of trust propensity, pay level, and role ambiguity. Journal of Business and Psychology28(2), 233-249.

Tweedie, D., Wild, D., Rhodes, C., & Martinov‐Bennie, N. (2019). How does performance management affect workers? Beyond human resource management and its critique. International Journal of Management Reviews21(1), 76-96.

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Open chat
1
towriteessays.com
Hello 👋
Thank you for choosing our assignment help service!
How can I help you?