Jahangirnagar University
Assignment on
" Business and Organizational Ethics"
Course Name: Business Ethics and Legal Environment
Course Code: EMBA-510
EMBA Program
Submitted To
Mamtaj Akter
Associate Professor,
Dept. of Marketing.
Jahangirnagar University
Submitted by
SL NO
02
03
06
07
13
Name
Md Ibrahim
MD Moniruzzaman
Monir Hossain
YASIN RAIHAN
Rakibul Hasan Khan
ID Number
20231070
20241069
20232063
20233051
20233061
Date of Submission: 18th of April, 2025
Table of Content:
Executive Summary ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Introduction: .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Case Study: Mercy Company and Jack ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Question & Answers …………………………………………...………………………….....6
Chapter 3 – Organizational Ethics ……………………..………………………………..6
Chapter 3 – Organizational Ethics ……………………..……………………………….7
Chapter 7 – Blowing the Whistle ………………………..……………………………....7
Conclusion …… …………………………………………..…………………………………8
2
Executive Summary
This case highlights a serious ethical and legal dilemma involving a former employee, Jack, and his
previous employer, Mercy Company. Jack, once a clerk at the company, was terminated from his
position, but some of his personal information, including a phone number registered under his name
for company use, remained in use by the organization after his departure. This oversight left Jack
exposed to potential misuse of his identity and financial liability.
After termination, Mercy Company continued using the phone number registered in Jack’s name,
accumulating substantial phone bills. Over the years, due to non-payment and accumulating late fees,
the bill grew from an initial amount of approximately $1,000 to over $30,000. Legally, since the
account is under Jack’s name, he is held responsible for the debt, despite the fact that it was incurred
by the company for its own purposes.
The case raises significant concerns about corporate responsibility, employee protection, and the
ethical obligations of employers. While Mercy Company may argue administrative convenience or
oversight, its refusal to acknowledge and settle the debt demonstrates a lack of accountability. This
situation places an undue burden on Jack and exemplifies how employees can be unfairly
‘compressed’ or exploited even after their employment ends.
Ultimately, this case underlines the need for clearer organizational policies regarding the handling of
employee-associated assets and liabilities, particularly during offboarding processes. It also
emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct by employers to prevent long-term harm to former
employees.
3
Introduction:
In any business, doing the right thing matters. especially when it comes to how companies
treat their people. This report looks at a real case involving Jack, a former employee of Mercy
Company. After Jack was let go, the company kept using a phone number that was still in his
name. Over time, the phone bill got very high, but Mercy Company didn’t take responsibility
for it. This situation shows how a company’s careless actions can cause serious problems for
someone who no longer even works there. In this report, we’ll explore the ethical issues in
this case, ask important questions about right and wrong, and think about what companies
should do to treat people fairly. Even after they leave the job.
Case Study: Mercy Company and Jack
Jack used to be a clerk in Mercy Company. But Jack is so unlucky that he has just been fired
by the company. Though now he doesn’t belong to Mercy Company, data about his
important personal information are left there or could be easily got by his colleagues or
superiors. This means he’s still in danger of being betrayed by his previous employer.
Supposing he used to register a phone number by name of himself but actually for benefit of
his company, his leaving could bring some ‘gray chances’ for Mercy Company. The
company could go on using that phone number under Jack’s name; it could also stop it at any
time. But, say, if the company cancels it one month after Jack’s leaving; or the company
makes many distant phone calls thus exhausts a large amount of money, Jack’s risk is
emerging then. As long as Mercy Company refuses to pay for the bill, the responsibility is to
be taken by Jack himself. Even if Jack is working happily in another company and enjoys his
life, leaving Mercy a good memory on his mind, the probable burden on him has never
disappeared. The longer the period is, the larger his legal burden is, for there’s legally a late
fine for delayed payment. Jack is really unlucky. Mercy Company indeed refuses to pay for
the expanded bill five years later, which has ‘grown’ to over thirty thousand dollars, whose
principal is about 1000 dollars, added late fee of scores of times of the principal. Morally it
should be due to Mercy Company, though the administrative part can only resort to Jack for
he’s the number’s nominal owner. Perhaps Mercy Company was willing to pay the bill at the
very beginning. But to accept it now means what is quite clear. Certainly Mercy Company is
reluctant to burden it. It is fair with jack but it’s more serious to an individual more than to a
company. If Mercy Company insists irresponsible to the bill, Jack has no other ways but to
pay for it. Mercy Company would elude its due liability in this way. Actually bosses or
employers are ‘compressing’ employees by doing similar things.
Jack can’t get rid of this dilemma since the situation he’s facing to is so serious. Legally he is
a contract part, while Mercy Company is an irrelevant party. If Jack could present the proof
that verifying he’s deceived by Mercy or he’s innocent in the case, perhaps he could guard
his interest from being infringed. But it must be an arduous way, because from the very
beginning he’s the first undertaker of that bill. We could condemn Mercy for so crafty
cheating behaviors. It could really save a great loss from transplanting liabilities to else parts.
The conclusion we could draw from it is only that Mercy is unethical. Trust or belief is what
we encourage in enterprise management. If everyone is suspicious to others or even the
4
company he’s serving for, the result of the whole company operation would be definitely
bad! The so-called corporate culture bewilders staff, employees are confused.
1. Is it ethically justifiable for a company to use a resource (like a phone number)
registered in an employee’s name without transferring responsibility after the
employee leaves.
2. Who bears greater ethical responsibility in this case — the individual (Jack) or the
organization (Mercy Company)?
3. Is it ethical for Mercy Company to ignore the long-term consequences of their actions
on a former employee?
4. Does Mercy Company demonstrate responsible behavior in handling employee-linked
resources after termination?
5. Would it be ethically acceptable for Jack to report Mercy Company’s misuse of his
identity to regulatory or legal authorities?
5
Question & Answer:
Chapter 1– Understanding Ethics
1. Is it ethically justifiable for a company to use a resource (like a phone number)
registered in an employee’s name without transferring responsibility after the
employee leaves.
Answer: No, it is not ethically justifiable. A company should not continue using
something in an employee’s name after the employee has left. If the phone number is still
under Jack’s name, then the company is putting all the risk on him. That is unfair. The
company should take responsibility or transfer it to their name. Otherwise, they are using
Jack’s name to avoid paying, which is dishonest and wrong.
2. Who bears greater ethical responsibility in this case — the individual (Jack) or the
organization (Mercy Company)?
Answer: Of course the Mercy company bears ethical responsibility than the individual
like Jack. While Jack may have been the nominal owner of the phone number, the
number was used for company purposes, and he had no control over it after his
departure while the company must close the number over his name. While they did
not close the number even they used that number without his permission . Ethical
responsibility lies more heavily with those who hold the power and benefit from a
situation, which in this context, was clearly the company. This demonstrates a serious
neglect of responsibility, a lack of organizational integrity, and an intentional
avoidance of accountability. Ethical corporate behavior demands fairness,
transparency, and protection of employees’ interests, values that company failed to
uphold. Therefore, the organization’s actions not Jack’s legal status, define the true
ethical breach in this scenario.
3. Is it ethical for Mercy Company to ignore the long-term consequences of their
actions on a former employee?
Answer: After comparing everything in this case it is my belief the Mercy Company
bears greater ethical responsibility. Because Jack is legally the owner of the phone
number. Though the phone number was used for company’s benefit. Though Mercy
company continued to use of the number after Jack’s departure. The Mercy company
shows their exploitation by refusal to pay bill. When individual employees may lack
of the power to challenge unfair treatment in that point ethically organization are
expected to act with integrity. For that reason, Mercy Company was shifted liability to
Jack without considering no longer benefits from controls the account. Jack acted as
nominal but company’s actions were deliberate. So it is easily said that Mercy
company holds the greater ethical accountability.
6
Chapter 3: Organizational Ethics
4. Does Mercy Company demonstrate responsible behavior in handling employeelinked resources after termination?
Answer: No Mercy Company did not act in a responsible way. When an employee
leaves a job, a good company should make sure everything, like phone numbers and
accounts, is properly taken care of. Mercy Company should have either changed the
phone number to the company’s name or stopped using it. But they kept using Jack’s
number without asking him or letting him know. This shows they didn’t handle his
leaving properly and didn’t treat him fairly. This type of activity will be considered as
misuse of personal property which is an ostensible.
we learn from Organizational Ethics chapter that any personal information and
belongings is responsibility of Human Resource (HRM) Department. In this case
Human Resource Department didn’t did their job perfectly, that’s why this problem
appeared.
Chapter 7: Blowing the Whistle
5. Would it be ethically acceptable for Jack to report Mercy Company’s misuse of his
identity to regulatory or legal authorities?
Answer: An employee must have valid reasons to believe that revealing the
wrongdoing to the public will result in the changes necessary to remedy the situation.
The chance of succeeding must be equal to the risk and danger the employee takes to
blow the whistle.
According to this case jack has the right to report the misuse of his company. Every
person has the right to protect himself from danger and unusual activities just like the
jack's situation. Jack has faced the unethical activities of his own organization so that
now he has to blow his whistle at external. In whistleblowing this situation is named
external whistleblowing.
To get proper concern about this matter the activities of jack is fully acceptable.
Moreover this reporting action isn't personal of jack’s activities besides jack has the
social responsibilities to make concern to others by informing them to be attentive
about this kind of situation.
7
Conclusion:
This case shows how a company’s actions can unfairly hurt someone if they don’t act
responsibly. Mercy Company kept using Jack’s phone number after he left the job, and when
the bills piled up, they refused to pay. This left Jack in a very difficult position. Even though
it may have been a mistake at first, ignoring the problem for years and not taking
responsibility was clearly wrong. A good company should care about how their actions affect
others, especially former employees. This report makes it clear that being ethical means
doing what’s fair and honest, not just what’s easy or convenient. In the end, doing the right
thing helps build trust and respect—for both people and organizations.
Work Distribution:
SL
NO
NAME
ID NO
06
Monir Hossain
20232063
Work Assigned
Question 1
02
Md Ibrahim
20231070
Question 2
03
MD Moniruzzaman
20241069
Question 3
13
Rakibul Hasan Khan
20233061
Question 4
07
Yasin Raihan
20233051
Question 5
8