Write a summary of Red Lobster case and Answer the followingquestions:
- Write A Summary Of Red Lobster Case And Answer The Following Questions 1 (250.54 KiB) Viewed 14 times
Red Lobster Christopher H. Lovelock A peer review panel of managers and service workers from a restaurant chain must decide whether or not a waitress has been unfairly fired from her job. 't felt like a knife going through me!" declared Mary Campbell, 53, after she was fired from her waitressing job at a restaurant in the Red Lobster chain. Instead of suing for what she considered unfair dismissal after 19 years of service, Campbell called for a peer review, seeking to recover her job and three weeks of lost wages. Three weeks after the firing, a panel of employees from different Red Lobster restaurants was reviewing the evidence and trying to determine whether the server had, in fact, been unjustly fired for allegedly stealing a guest comment card completed by a couple of customers whom she had served. PEER REVIEW AT DARDEN INDUSTRIES Red Lobster was owned by Darden Industries, which also owned other restaurant chains such as Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse, The Capital Grill, Bahama Breeze, and Seasons 52. The
company had about 1,900 restaurants serving 400 million meals a year. Red Lobster, which had more than 180,000 employees, had adopted a policy of encouraging peer reviews of disputed employee firings and disciplinary actions several years earlier. The
company's key objectives were to limit worker lawsuits and ease workplace tensions. Advocates of the peer review approach, which had been adopted at several other companies, believed that it was a very effective way of constructively channeling the pain and anger that employees felt after being fired or disciplined by their managers. By reducing the incidence of lawsuits, a
company could also save on legal expenses. A Darden spokesperson stated that the peer review program had been "tremendously successful" in protecting valuable ©2009 by Christopher H. Lovelock, updated 2015 by Jochen Wirtz. This case is based on information in a story by Margaret A. Jacobs in the Wall Street Journal, Real names have been changed.. employees from unfair dismissal. Each year, about 100 disputes ended up in peer review, with only 10 subsequently resulting in lawsuits, Red Lobster managers and many employees also credited peer review with reducing racial tensions. Campbell, who said she had received dozens of calls of support, chose peer review over a lawsuit not only because it was much cheaper but also because she "liked the idea of being judged by people who know how things work in a little restaurant." THE EVIDENCE The review panel included a general manager, an assistanc manager, a server, a hostess, and a bartender. All of them had volunteered to review the circumstances of Mary Campbell's firing. Each panelist had undergone peer review training and was receiving regular wages plus travel expenses. Panelists were simply instructed to do what they felt was fair. Campbell, who worked as a restaurant server at the Red Lobster in Marston, had been fired by Jean Larimer, the general manager of this outlet. The reason given for the firing was that Campbell had asked the restaurant's hostess, Eve Taunton, for the key to the guest comment box and had stolen a cand from it. The card had been completed by a couple of gueses whom Campbell had served and who seemed dissatisfied with their experience at the restaurant. Subsequently, the guests learned that their comment card, which complained that their prime rib of beef was too rare and that their waitress was "uncooperative," had been removed from the box. Jean Larimer's testimony. Larimer, who supervised 100 full-and part-time employees, testified that she had dismissed Campbell after one of the two customers complained angrily o her and her supervisor. "She [the guest] felt violated," declared the manager, "because her card was taken from the box and her complaint about food was ignored." Larimer dress the panel's attention to the
company rule book, pointing out that Campbell had violated the policy that forbade removal of
company property.
Mary Campbell's testimony. Campbell testified that the female customer had requested that her prime rib be cooked "well done" and had subsequently complained that it was fatty and undercooked. The waitress told the panel that she had politely suggested that "prime rib always has fat on it" bur had arranged to have the meat cooked a little more. However, the woman still seemed unhappy. She poured some steak sauce over the meat but then pushed away her plate without eating all the food. When the customer remained displeased, Campbell offered her a free dessert. However, the guests decided to leave, paid the bill, filled out the guest comment card, and dropped it in the guest comment box. Admitting she was consumed by curiosity, Campbell asked Eve Taunton, the restaurant's hostess, for the key to the box. After removing and reading the card, she pocketed it. Her intent, she declared, was to show the card to Jean Larimer, who had been concerned earlier that the prime rib served Exhibit 1: The restaurant scene becomes the testing ground for the validity of peer review. at the restaurant was overcooked rather than undercooked. However, she forgot about the card and later threw it out accidentally. Eve Taunton's testimony. At the time of the firing, Taunton, a 17-year-old student, was working at Red Lobster for the summer. "I didn't think it was a big deal to give her [Campbell] the key," she said. "A lot of people would come up to me to get it." THE PANEL DELIBERATES Having heard the testimony, the members of the review panel had to decide whether Jean Larimer had been justified in firing Mary Campbell. The panelists' initial reactions to the situation were split by rank, with the hourly workers supporting Campbell and the managers supporting Larimer. The debate began in earnest when an effort was made to reach consensus. STUDY
QUESTIONS What are the marketing implications of this situation? Evaluate the concept of peer review. What are its strengths and weaknesses? What type of environment is required to make it work well? 1. 2. 3. Review the evidence. Do you believe the testimony presented? 4. What decision would you make and why? CASE STUDY