Ethical dilemma - job related, WWYD?

[PlaceAtTheTable]

NC, obviously. I'll try to keep this brief:

One of my superiors at work, A, is in a bit of a legal pickle with regard to a client contract (not his fault but a series of rather unfortunate occurrences). This is someone who I feel immense loyalty to and for whom I'd happily get up at 3am to help bury a body.

I'm in a position to help due to some information I have obtained in a not entirely ethical manner from a second contact, B. In my defense: this information was offered to me freely and I didn't ask for it. I name dropped at an event and B pro-actively rang to tell me about this.

Basically, I couId kill two birds with one stone and help my A out while also doing B's bidding. Sounds perfect, right?

The problem is, that this would entail forcing a third party, C, into a comply-or-be-fired position that, while technically perfectly legal, is not what our firm states as its policy. I'm essentially meant to force them to solve A's problem against their will to get them out of B's hair either due to re-assignment or by engineering an unreasonable behaviour type of situation that would be grounds for dismissal (B's agenda).

This is obviously rather shady as it is, seeing as the info that B volunteered is highly confidential. On top of that, resolving the situation would probably catapult me into the pole position for promotion, so I personally stand to gain from doing it. Conversely, as A's subordinate, I stand to lose if A has legal issues even though they're not directly related to my job.

OTOH, C has a rep as a problem child and will arguably get the sack either way - it's all a question of when and how grounds for dismissal can be found. He's also legally obliged to do what I would need him to - that's just not what our HR decides to tell our employees (for PR reasons) but is actually very clear cut.

For background, in case it matters: I'm a middle manager in a large corporation, as is C. A is upper management. B's general area is HR.

So, yeah, WWYD? Help friends in need and and leverage what's coming either way or refuse to play ball, lose out and feel superior due to my impeccable ethics?

Is the only ethical dilemma here that you'll be party to C being forced into a role they don't want? If so, I would do it. C wouldn't be in this position if they weren't a whiny, underperforming pita. And by the sound of it they'll find another way to force C out if this doesn't happen. So all you'll be doing is initiating something that will happen anyway in a way that resolves another problem. If you've got an ethical issue with that you will not enjoy working in corporate management roles for very long.

The ethical dilemma is: HR supplied me with a piece of information that I can use to blackmail C into the assignment and, essentially, assured me that any complaints from C's side if I did would be 'investigated as per policy and duly dismissed.

Basically, HR and - by extension - C-level management would like me to force C's hand. Undoubtedly, their preferred outcome would be for C to kick up a fuss and for this to constitute grounds for dismissal.

If C doesn't refuse, that'll work for corporate, too, since it'll mean that C is now A's problem as opposed to 'not placeable and, as such, care of corporate'.

So

A needs a c to fulfill a contractual obligation.
C will be asked to do it.
C will say no thinking he can
The company will then terminate because he doesn't have the right to say no, but is unaware.

Problem solved. C leaves.

A still has a duty on thr contract though. So he still needs to find another c.

You are not the boss of c, so how can you make it happen?

Can a not talk to c manager?

What if c says yes? He will do it?

Just read your update. That's clearer.

They want you to blackmail c? And when he kicks up a fuss they will fire him? Anc if he doesn't a is happy to take him to meet then contractual need?

@Bluntness100, see above. I've been 'made aware', so to speak, of means and ways to 'make' C do my bidding.

Contractually speaking, the issue is resolved once C is introduced to the client. A is merely obliged to make available a person of C's type - nothing more.

If B thinks he can be forced into this position, then why is B, as HR manager, not involved in actioning this?

Be careful of making contractual changes if HR are hiding from the situation, essentially loading up the bow and arrow for you to fire, but not having the balls to stand up themselves alongside you.

Just ask yourself what your position would be if C leaves or is sacked and decides to take this to union/employment tribunal/senior management/press. If you are comfortable that you can give an honest account of your actions without negative impression of you or the organisation you are probably in the clear. If not the. You have you're answer.

And don't forget if C leaves he can ask for sight of all communications about him.

Surely either way does not help A?
C refuses and gets sacked, you have no C person as required by the contract.
C agrees, you introduce C to the client and C screws it up as incompetent, you loose the client.
Is there an alternative source of competent Cs anywhere?

Sounds to me like you could be monumentally dropped in it Op.

How would you feel if you were treated the same by the organisation as C might be?

Why can't HR deal with this directly or even A approach HR and say he needs C for project - it all feels a little uncomfortable and possibly too convenient to me.

@Florene, according to my understanding, B needs a demonstrable case of 'option X, which doesn't correspond to your preferences, is available and you refused X in breach of your contract' situation to arise.

B is basically asking that I communicate X being available. B is undoubtedly hoping that C will say no and that this will constitute grounds for dismissal. However, B is also providing me with means and ways to make it hard for C to decline.

IMO, this is so that B can later say that corporate tried their utmost to place C. B would arguably prefer for C to say no and fire him - however, C being A's problem is an acceptable outcome for B, and - unless I'm reading the situation entirely wrong, which (having known B for half a decade, I don't think I am), B is offering me the option of using C as A fix in exchange for me providing grounds for dismissal if C doesn't respond.

Can C take this further than HR ? As what will happen if he does? What if it gets looked into and what you and B did gets found out? Will B take the fall for you or does it fall on you ? Honestly If I'm understanding what you mean then B had breached confidentiality and wants you to blackmail someone ? No I wouldn't do it but I think you work in a totally different environment so maybe this goes in your field.

Is there an alternative source of competent Cs anywhere?

Two altogether - one of them being C. I'm obviously working the other option as a priority. It's to do with non-EU geography and therefore work permits and therefore timelines being eexceeded. If thing didn't have to happen before the end of the calendar year, we'd be fine and dandy and I wouldn't even consider the option of throwing C under the bus.

But if B is HR then why hasn't A "formally" asked B for a view as to availability of a C type for placement...? Then this cuts you out - its all above board?

@Sleephead1, the risk to me personally is basically none. There are no written records, B is not suicidal, and, no, C can't reasonably take this any further. 'No client will take you' technically satisfies all requirements already. Corporate engineering their case, IMO, is a question of them covering their arses just in case already.

They need concrete case evidence just in case C argues unfair dismissal. I'm being asked to provide a cop out for C in order for a concrete case to exist. If C does the sensible thing and agrees, that's a case of 'didn't solve the problem but outsourced it' from their stance and hence acceptable, too.

Or is the reason that C's suitability is not widely known is something that B knows by unofficial means. For arguments sake the contract requires someone who speaks Klingon and B knows C can do this from the time B bumped into C at Comic Con but both were in costume so C didn't recognise B.... (am overthinking this)

@myrtleWilson, A did this. C declined. B told me how to 'make' C agree - undoubtedly hoping that C will still say no and B can fire C as A result.

This is really bad and it doesn't take impeccable ethics to see that. You should keep out.

So if you're 'blackmailing' C to force his hand, can he not enquire where you got this privvy info from? Or am I missing the point?

Sounds like you’re being sucked into Machiavellian bullshit.

Just tell A that you have found C who on paper is suitable for the role and share “above board” info, including any performance concerns. Offer the job to C but do not blackmail him.

B/HR desire to gather ammo sack C is not your problem.

Contractual penalties for the work A manages are not really your problem either.

@myrtleWilson, for arguments sake:

Contract requires that A offer Klingon speaker. If the client declines on other grounds despite the person introduced speaking Klingon, A is fine.

C speaks Klingon but request to only do so on vehicles not belonging to the Federation. A's ship is part of the Federation.

C thinks this is a contractual agreement - it isn't.

B wants to get rid of C due to C's navigating skills being deal. B would also be fine with C being a professional Klingon translator on the shop captained by A - just so long as B isn't in charge of sellibg C as A navigator.

B offered me help on getting C to translate Klingon in exchange (implicit understanding) for me providing evidence that C was offered translation work and turned it down.

A and myself are actually hoping that C will agree to be introduced to the Klingons as their translator, thus eliminating the threat of our ship being blown to smithereens by them. B would prefer this didn't happen and C could be fired, but would also be okay with C being on someone else's ship as an alternative.

And ... I think I've reached the end of my intergalactic metaphorical skills at this point.

Also, the client in question is henceforth going to exist as 'the Klingons' in my inner world - it's not a bad analogy at all.

This won't end well. You have a conscience.

I think if A has already approached C, and he’s turned it down, then you shouldn’t be needed to “blackmail” him - at that point, surely HR (B) steps in to say “Actually C the Company requires you to take this placement - no other suitable placement can be found.”

I’m unclear wht they require you to coerce C with reasons you shouldn’t know.

B can do this themselves. If they can’t/won’t, then you probably shouldn’t either.

Very nice intergalactic explanation

If all they need to dismiss him is for him to turn the job down, then he has done this already by decline A's offer.

I can see how 'blackmailing' him into taking the job would benefit B by virtue of C not being Corporate's issue any more. But I am failing to see how if C doesn't respond to the blackmail, why this makes it suddenly 'more' possible to fire him than it already is now he's refused the job already?

I am clearly missing something, but not sure what.