Legal & unions | Human Resource Management homework help
Legal & unions | Human Resource Management homework help.
Legal & Unions
Select and READ one of the following case studies (located in your textbook):
CASE 10-1 WILLFUL VIOLATION, OR A PROBLEM THAT CAN BE CORRECTED?
CASE 10-2 CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND REINSTATEMENT OF STRIKERS
Next, analyze the case and provide an overview of key points or discussions. An overview is not a detailed description or regurgitated statements from the case, but instead key points in the case. Then, make 2 recommendations for improvements for any parts of the case (think like an HR leader). Saying that someone should have did this, or what you would have done are not considered improvements.
- You may only have no more than two references for your response and each must be appropriately cited in the words.
Case 10-1 Willful Violation, or a Problem That Can Be Corrected?
Sandy Clark has worked for Healthy Meals Company for 10 years in a facility that cooks and packages prepared, frozen meals. Sandy is part of a crew that provides cleaning and sanitation services for the equipment used to prepare the meals. She has always sustained an excellent work record with no complaints about her work performance. She was recently assigned to the night shift to clean and sanitize the equipment used to mix and dispense sauce for the meals. The equipment consists primarily of a large vat and a rotating paddle with wooden blades driven by an electrical motor to continuously stir the sauce. After the meal preparation crew finishes production for the day shift, Sandy’s work begins cleaning and sanitizing the equipment for production the next day.
Sandy was trained to clean and sanitize the equipment by observing an experienced member of the sanitizing crew who had been performing the work for the past three years. During her training, she was instructed to use a high-pressure water hose, bleach, and sanitizing cleaner on the paddle blades and the lower part of the vat, then use a sponge pad to scrub the top part of the vat. Her trainer explained that the best way to get the wooden paddles thoroughly clean was to spray them while the machine was running, then turn off the equipment and lock it out before she used the sponge pad to clean the inside of the vat. After two days of training, she demonstrated to the person who trained her that she could satisfactorily perform all the duties of cleaning the equipment.
During her second week of working alone cleaning the vat and the wooden paddles of sauce residue, she was spraying the paddles using the high-pressure water hose while the machine was running with the paddles turning in the vat. While holding the sponge pad in one hand and holding the hose nozzle in the other hand, she finished spraying the moving paddles and accidently dropped the pad from her hand into the vat. She reached to grab the sponge pad as a reflex action and the fingertips of her rubber gloves were caught between the wall of the vat and the paddle. The paddle pulled her right hand further into the hopper up to her knuckles. Immediately, a nearby coworker turned off the equipment and freed Sandy’s hand. Fortunately, she suffered only minor injuries to her hand. She later stated that she reacted to reach for the pad and catch it to avoid damage to the equipment. After an investigation was conducted by a safety inspector, the company’s management stated that Sandy did not follow the proper procedure for cleaning the equipment by first unplugging the power cord for the motor then locking out the electrical source to assure that no one started the motor. This procedure was to be followed before any cleaning of the equipment was started.
Sandy, during her rebuttal, claims that discharge is too severe when you consider her work performance for ten years of service to the company and she was never told by any management official that her job performance was unacceptable. According to two other employees who previously held this job, training for these duties was typically done with instruction and observation by someone who had earlier carried out the tasks. Sandy points out that she has followed the procedure for cleaning and sanitizing that she was taught by another employee during her training and no one has ever instructed her otherwise. She adds that she has learned by her mistake and that she would not make that mistake again. She believes that progressive discipline should be used in this particular case. Sandy was subsequently fired for “willfully violating the company’s proper safety procedures.”
- Do the facts in this case indicate that Sandy Clark was guilty of a willful violation of the company’s safety rules? Explain your answer.
- What possible corrective action could the company take as an alternative to discharge?
- If Sandy is represented by a labor union with a current labor agreement or contract stating that “employees shall only be discharged for just cause,” how could this affect her termination?
- What particular mitigating factors or circumstances in this case should be considered in determining whether or not her termination is for “just cause?”
Case created by Robert F. Wayland, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Case 10-2 Constructive Discharge and Reinstatement of Strikers
Pearl Refining Company operates a facility in Sunflower, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the refining, sale, and distribution of petroleum products. The International Refinery Workers Union conducted an organizing drive recently at this facility, but it failed to obtain majority support in an election conducted by the NLRB. Chief Operator Gene Roberts has worked at Pearl’s Sunflower refinery for about 16 years. Roberts works all three shifts on a rotating basis, earning $24 per hour. Roberts attended one union organizing meeting and voted during the union organizing election, but he didn’t discuss with anyone how he voted.
Pearl Refining Company also operates a crude oil storage facility located in northern Louisiana, about 4 hours’ drive from the refinery. The refinery manager, Dusty Conway, was notified by vice president of refining George Letterman that the crude oil storage facility in Louisiana had recently been experiencing substantial shortages in deliveries of crude oil. Crude oil delivery receipts kept at the refinery did not correspond to the crude oil reportedly delivered by truck from independent producers to the Louisiana storage facility. It was suspected that a large portion of this shortage was due to the delivery of water rather than oil to the storage facility. To correct this problem, it was necessary to send someone to the storage facility to double-check the truck drivers’ deliveries and the accuracy of their delivery reports. Refinery manager Conway decided to send Gene Roberts to the Louisiana crude oil storage facility, thinking that he was very dependable and had the experience to do the best job of detecting who might be delivering water instead of crude oil.
Conway called Roberts to his office on Monday and instructed him not to report for the night shift, as originally scheduled, but to report to the crude oil storage facility on Wednesday morning to accept a 2-week assignment there, helping the gauging employees at the facility. Roberts said that he didn’t want the assignment and that he wanted to keep his regular job as operator. Conway said, “No, Gene. Let’s just think about it. You go home and think about it and come back in the morning.” The next morning, Roberts told Conway that he wanted to continue working in his current job in the plant and that the Louisiana assignment might result in some conflict. Conway said, “Well, Gene, that’s all there is for you, that’s it, and that’s all.” Roberts, thinking that he had no choice in the matter, laid his hard hat on the desk, walked out of Conway’s office, and left the refinery. As Roberts was walking out of the refinery, Manager Conway confronted him, stating that he was considering this a resignation and that his employment would be terminated.
The following morning, six of Roberts’s fellow employees met with Conway in his office and asked that Roberts be reinstated. Conway informed them that he had no intention of rehiring Roberts. The six employees then informed Conway that if Roberts was not going to be rehired, they were going out on strike. The employees then left the refinery and started picketing.
Subsequently, Roberts filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stating that he had been constructively discharged. In addition, the six employees on strike complained to the NLRB that they were participating in an unfair labor strike and requested that they be reinstated to their jobs and made whole. The employees were told by refinery manager Conway that their jobs had already been filled and that they therefore could not get their old jobs back.
- What are the differences between “constructive discharge” and “wrongful discharge”?
- What factors would the NLRB most likely consider in its investigation of whether or not Roberts’s termination was a constructive discharge?
- What elements should be proven to show that Roberts was “constructively discharged”?
- What is the difference between economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes?
- What rights do economic strikers and unfair labor practice strikers have to reinstatement?
Case created by Robert F. Wayland, University of Arkansas at Little Rock