Page 4 - SCS May 2018 - Day 2 Suggested Solutions

CIMA MAY 2018 – STRATEGIC CASE STUDY

EXERCISE 2

Briefing notes

To: Jen Kramer
From: Senior Manager
Subject: Claim from Tom Kelly

The purpose of these briefing notes is to put forward the practical steps Couchweb may take
having received the letter from Tom Kelly, indicating that a lawsuit claiming plagiarism is to be
launched against Couchweb. Attached afterwards is an announcement to the Stock Exchange
should this prove necessary.

Practical steps

There are a number of steps that Couchweb should take having received this letter:

Liaise with HR

The HR department should still have all of the documents in relation to Tom Kelly’s employment
with the company. These should be retrieved from storage and examined carefully.

It should first be established that Tom Kelly did indeed work for the company during the period
that he claims. It should also be established in what capacity he was employed by the company;
he states to have been in the function headed up by Javier Mercot, who joined us in 2013. The
dates would appear to be consistent, but was Tom Kelly part of the team responsible for New
Content?

Secondly, the other aspects of Tom Kelly’s letter should be verified. For example, did he really
work on the pilot series of ‘Tumbling Down’? He states that this was just one of the successful
shows he was involved with; is this accurate?

The records documenting his dismissal should also be reviewed carefully. He claims that he was
puzzled by the accusation that he was being dismissed for not meeting expectations; is there
documentary evidence showing that this was indeed the cause of his dismissal? Furthermore, was
a full and proper process entered into leading up to his termination? For example, was he given
due warnings as part of the appraisal process? Was he allowed the opportunity to have a
representative present at any meetings at which his performance was discussed? Couchweb
needs to ensure that all proper HR legislation in place at that time was fully complied with.

If Tom Kelly did indeed receive compensation from the company in respect of his employment
being terminated, did he sign a letter at the time stating that he was accepting the cash in return
for not being able to make any future claim against the company? It is usual in such circumstances
for the employer to insert such disclaimers.

Assuming Tom Kelly worked for Couchweb in the role that he claims, the contract of employment
that he was given when first joining the business should be reviewed carefully, especially in
respect of intellectual property. I would assume that, for anyone involved in coming up with ideas
for new shows, the company protects itself by stating that any ideas generated will remain the

60 KAPLAN PUBLISHING