Question

CASE STUDY DANGEROUS ASSIGNMENTS On June 24, 1998, Edward Leonard, of Creston, BC, a diamond driller working for Terramundo Drilling, was kidnapped by members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in northeastern Colombia. Leonard's captors wanted to negotiate a deal for gold mining shares with Greystar Resources., a gold mining company from Vancouver and the owner of claims in Colombia's Santander prov- ince for which Terramundo and Leonard were contracted to drill core samples. Leonard's boss, Terramundo's Norbert Reinhart, wanted to purchase his employ- ee's freedom by paying $100 000 to the FARC guerrillas. On October 6, 1998, in a meeting with the guerrillas, Reinhart and the ransom money were exchanged with Leonard. While Reinhart was hoping to walk away with Leonard after the money exchange, the FARC realized that Reinhart was the president of Terramundo and thought that in him they had an even better hostage. After 94 days of captivity, and complex negotiations between the FARC, local contacts, and Canadian gov- ernmental and company officials, Reinhart was released on January 8, 1999. The case shows the dangers of frontier mining (which has had a strong tradi- tion in Canada) and illustrates some of the potential challenges for employees on international assignments. At the same time, the case has started a strong debate about the responsibilities of companies operating in industries and geographic regions dangerous to their employees, and the necessity for precautious actions and support structures protecting international assignees. (In the same year in which Reinhart was taken hostage, more than 2100 people were kidnapped in Colombia, including at least 43 foreigners.) Source: T. Fennell and S. Timmins, "Homecoming for a Hero," Maclean's (January 25, Vol.112, Issue 4, p.26-29, 1999). QUESTIONS 1. Was it the right decision in the first place for Terramundo to operate in a region well known for being controlled by FARC guerrillas, and in which kidnapping was a very common way to fund FARC activities? 2. Did Reinhart do the right thing to get involved in the way described and help his employee? What were Reinhart's alternatives and options? 3. What can companies operating in industries such as the mining or oil business do to protect their international assignees? What should be the role of the HRM function? 4. When sending your employees into remote and dangerous geographic regions, should all employees (i.e., both home- and host-country employees) get the same employment support and workplace safety and security support? Does reality reflect your response?

500 words

Answer 1

1) Yes, it was the right decision for Terramundo to operate in Colombia despite knowing its dangers, the mining industry is a dangerous industry as it requires working in a desolate and dead spot, backward regions of the world often ruled by monarchies or under military rule. The rewards enjoyed is as great as the risk associated. all personnel working in different capacities of the mining industry are aware of such risks, especially mining companies such companies always have the support and backing of local governments.

2) Reinhart did not do the correct thing by involving himself directly in the negotiations, even though he was right as a boss to be concerned about the welfare of his employee, his haste not only impacted himself financially and physically but put in jeopardy and waste the efforts of the negotiators as his employee was still in captivity. Negotiations must always be left to the professionals handling the situation and apt instructions should have been followed. Reinhart had no option but to wait and follow instructions given by the kidnappers. the only alternative he could use was to use back-channel negotiations for a plea bargain.

3) The mining industry includes International work and travel as part of the daily operations of a multinational organisation. This travel is not without risk for both the employer and the employee. Intrinsic in this employer/employee relationship is the employer’s responsibility for its employees’ health, safety and security. This responsibility applies to employees and their dependents when they are on business trips or on a short- or long-term international assignment.

Roles are as follows: human resource (HR) perspective, employers have a variety of Duty of Care responsibilities for their employees. They are expected to take practical steps to defend their employees against any reasonably predictable danger in the workplace or at the site. When employees work across international borders, it’s the employer’s legally binding duty involves risk management extending beyond the usual necessities enforced by the location in the employee’s home country irrespective of employees being on short-term business travel or long-term expatriates, they come across unaware environments and their exposure to risk and potential harm is increased.

4) Yes, all employees irrespective of being of foreign origin or of local origin should get the same employment support and workplace safety and security support. Unfortunately, reality does not reflect my response and often lower-level workers are discriminated from mid or higher level employees.