Human Resources in Business Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Human Resources in Business - Case Study Example Other rewards might be social gatherings for different departments, free access to sports clubs or events, and gift packages for vacations or weekend getaways. Both controlling costs and promoting fairness are equally important in designing a reward system. I believe the key to a successful organization is to try and balance between the controlling costs and promoting fairness. The above mentioned company for which I worked 5 years and in two different countries, the reward system, the bonuses in particular were adjusted several times. This, though, was not as a result of the modifying organizational strategies, but a change made in order to respond adequately to the extra money that employees were earning. The statistics showed that some employees are earning the same bonus as the amount of their salary and senior managers decided to change the bonus system, so that greater revenues stays with the company. Therefore, on the various new reward systems that were introduced, hard-working employees who reached their target each month received fewer bonuses. I had experience in job evaluation schemes and I think I was lucky to have a great team leader, who encouraged me to develop the skills that I lacked and gave me the confidence to relate to the job position. The positive aspects might be that although you know that you are performing well, you still need another point of view of your achievements. Employees are not able to look their work from aside so job evaluation is a good way to adjust the barometer of the performed job. A negative aspect might be that everyone has been evaluated under the same criteria, which is very general, and sometimes subjective. Therefore, people, who have different attitude, abilities, predispositions are evaluated under the same common denominator, which destroys the individuality and divides employees into already set

The property and financial difficulties of a divorced couple Case Study

The property and financial difficulties of a divorced couple - Case Study Example Divorce has always been a complex and controversial subject for couples. For the most part, the issues concerning property, pension or children complicate relationships and adversely impinge on families including the children. The case of Jenny and Ted is not different compared to others who had to deal with the issue of property during or after the divorce is filed. However, if amicable settlement is not reached by the couple, the laws in the United Kingdom with regards family, divorce and property are very clear on this issue.First the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 sets out the foundation for divorce and is also the major law England and Wales which stipulates the creation of ancillary relief -the financial payment to a marriage party after a couple files for a divorce, nullity of marriage or separation. The claimant of the ancillary relief should present her claim (in this case, Jenny) to a court in England or Wales in order for the court to resolve pecuniary issues which arise from the divorce. 1This is specified in Section 23 & 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which states that the court is empowered to create financial and property provision orders when a couple is granted a divorce. This provision indicates that a party to a marriage shall pay, in forms of securities, bonds or share, or in unsecured lump sums, the other party. Section 24 of the aforementioned act likewise gives the courts in England and Wales the power to order the sale of property which is intended for ancillary relief. The courts in England and Wales have been given this authority since 1970's which bestow them the powers to transfer ownership of property and order a party to make payments to the other party. This authority requires that the courts must assess whether the pecuniary relationship between the couple must be ordered immediately ceased or terminated. 2Payment to the other party in a marriage is ordered by the court in a form of maintenance or in a form of a clean break order which bars the litigant from making further claims in a form of ancillary relief. This payment is also referred to as maintenance orders which can be given to the other party on 'nominal basis' or specific terms. However, the court can review this order any time so as to match the ongoing adjustments in financial ability of the parties who filed for a divorce. The terms and particular dates and arrangements for maintenance orders are usually specified by the courts (Kempton & Theobold 2001). Other various orders which the court can create on their discretion and ones which are contextually related to the family law include Property Adjustment Order in which the courts are given a wide discretion on how the property will be divided and in what shares. The court also has the power to order the auction of the matrimonial home of the couple. Furthermore, a variety of options are open to the courts of England and Wales in order to settle dispute on property. These factors are listed on Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 so that the courts may serve well and judiciously the interest of both parties in a marriage or serve the best interest of the children. The possible orders that courts can make are in fact limitless and they are created in specific circumstances (Kempton & Theobold 2001). The idea of fair and equal distribution of property has its precedence on the landmark cases decided by courts of England and Wales or the House of Lords. One such case is the famous White v White 2001 in which the House of Lords ordered a controversial redistribution of the couple's finances and property after the divorce. Lord Nicholls, a member of the House has set precedence in his speech which would later on specify the acts with regards division of assets. Nicholls stated in his speech that in all cases, judges must practice judiciousness and ensure their provisional judgment (on assets distribution) regarding the "yardstick of equality of division". This does not mean