heinz australia

Purpose
The primary purpose of this assessment task is to help students develop skills to apply HRM strategies within a contemporary organisational framework. The assignment also develops insights into implementation of performance management strategies and helps to understand the importance of those insights for the HR professionals, incorporate appropriate individual and organisational HRM strategies within an organisational context by way of analytical report and finally critically and analytically evaluate the relevance of new theories, design methods, HR laws and concepts within human resource management. The secondary purpose of this assignment is to give students the opportunity to develop research, analysis, selfmanagement and problem identification skills, as well as skills in presenting an argument for performance management within the framework of .

Description
Assessment task 2 requires the writing of a business report. The report should be designed as a management document that can be used to implement recommended changes. It should include a comprehensive analysis of the current situation using HRM theory, performance management models, strategies and frameworks. The report should clearly explain the various options available and analyse the consequences of these. Students are expected to engage in extensive research within the academic literature relating to , performance management, employee performances, employee feedback and other relevant theories, models and frameworks.

Details
The assessment item is based on the case study titled Performance Management at Heinz Australia. The case and assignment requirements are included in the document and can also be accessed through the . You should read, and carefully analyse, the case and respond to the issues presented at the end of the case study within the context of a professionally presented business report. You are required to support your argument with appropriate theoretical discussion and references.

The assignment should contain a coherent, but necessarily restricted review of the academic literature on the  topics in question. The literature review should be integrated into the assignment, not a separate section. A reference listformatted in the prescribed Harvard style is compulsory. Do not include a bibliography.

You will be expected to present information and evidence from, and cite, at least fifteen (15) relevant peer-reviewed,  journal articles, academic references (minimum requirement). The quality and number of citations will demonstrate the breadth and depth of the literature used to answer the questions. Your marker is interested in the analysis that you have developed from your review of the literature and how well you use the literature to respond to the topic. It is suggested to avoid presenting a descriptive account only of your readings. What is required in this assessment is a critical evaluation of the academic literature as it relates to the specific details of the case study.

Case Study:  at Heinz Australia

Fair Work Australia (FWA) has found it was unfair for HJ Heinz Company Australia to dismiss a sales manager named Morettiwho refused to be  managed because he feared it was designed to trigger his exit from the company.

In ordering the reinstatement of the former West Australian sales manager- Moretti, employed by Heinz from 1983 until his dismissal in August 2011, FWA Deputy President
Brendan McCarthy said the performance grounds relied on by  had been
‘imperfectly, if not carelessly, formed for an employer of Heinz’s size’.

One of the reasons Heinz management gave the hearing for insisting on an individual performance management plan for the manager was a low score in his annual review. However, this score was not an individual performance rating, but a company-wide rating that gave all employees the same score.

‘It could not be a justifiable reason or even part of a reason for the  of a plan solely for [the sales manager- Moretti]’, McCarthy said.

After taking part in an annual  in May 2011, Moretti attended a meeting in early June with the retail sales general manager who, according to Moretti, told him that there was no longer a job for him and he should resign or he would be performance-managed out.

Heinz provided no evidence from the retail sales manager to the employee’s account of this meeting, which included notes made immediately after the meeting.

In July and early August, a series of meetings and communications took place between Moretti and Heinz during which he was told the company had some performance concerns, but these would be discussed once he had agreed to sign an individual  plan.

Moretti repeatedly asked for details of the  concerns and expressed his fear that the company was going to use this process to force him out. Ultimately, he was given until 17 August to sign the plan or be dismissed.

Heinz argued before McCarthy that the dismissal occurred because Moretti refused to take part in discussions about performance concerns or sign up to an individual performance  plan.

However, McCarthy said that he did not accept Heinz’s argument, but believed that it was instead based on a possibly flawed view that his performance required improvement.

He said that the company chose not respond to repeated requests by Moretti for details of the performance concerns the company purported to have, insisting that he instead sign the performance plan before further discussions.

When Morettirefused to sign, company management told the hearing there was no other option but dismissal. ‘I disagree. There are alternative actions Heinz could have taken’, McCarthy said.
He said the employee (Moretti) had ‘good reason’ to be suspicious about the company’s intentions.

‘He (Moretti) had not been subjected to any performance plans of this nature in the past, no other managers were being subjected to performance plans, his experience was that when employees were subjected to performance plans it was because of poor performance plans and importantly [the retail sales manager] had told him he was going to be performancemanaged out of Heinz’.

McCarthy said the company had not satisfied him that reinstatement was not possible and ordered that the company appoint him to a position on no less favourable terms and conditions and repay the remuneration the manager had lost between his dismissal and reinstatement.

(Frank Moretti Vs. HJ Heinz Company Australia Ltd. 2012, FWA 1016, February 7, 2012, http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2012fwa1016.htm)
Task:

You are asked as an independent consultant to conduct a critical review of the company’s employee performance management strategies for Heinz Company Australia and recommend the way forward. Write a business report that answers all the three questions:

1. How was Heinz’s approach to  invalid in relation to Moretti’s job? Explain your answer in relation to significance of strategic performance management, appraisal and employee feedback in organisational context.
2. How was Heinz’s approach towards employee performance management unreliable? Discuss your answer that relates employee performance management and its impact on  and organisational performances.
3. Identify the ways in which Heinz’s  could be improved. As part of your answer, make sure you explain carefully how the company should implement your recommendations because so much of success in this area depends on the ‘how’ of any strategy is implemented.

Is necessary include most of this subjects in the report always using as a reference (Harvard reference)
1. Performance  include Individual and team performance.
2. Programs Rewarding employee .
3. Balance scorecard.
4. Fair Work Australia
5. Unfair dismissal AND HR 
6. Performance workplace appraisals
7. Employee performance

Do you want a similar Paper? Click Here To Get It From Our Writing Experts At A Reasonable Price.