MY BOILER PAINTETH OVER

Background

Morton Thiokol and its employees at the Morton Salt Plant were operating under a Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Ohio Revised Code. Under the agreement, the company reserved the right to "make changes in the work content of any of the various classifications." This implied that Morton Thiokol could alter duties of its employees, to a certain point, without completely restructuring the position they held. This Ohio Revised Code controlled the operation of boilers of more than thirty horsepower. Under this code, a licensed engineer had to be in control of the boiler at all times the boiler was in operation. All of the boilers at Morton Thiokol fit into the thirty$-$horsepower$-$or$-$more category. Under a new directive from management, stationary engineers were ordered to maintain their work areas in a neat and orderly fashion. This had been required in the past. The new memo also instructed the engineer to paint the equipment. The painting process involved the equipment the engineer was responsible for Company estimated that the time involved was nine hours and it could be completed over a three$-$week period. The stationary engineers and firemen felt that the company's request was unreasonable. They stated that the painting requirement created an unsafe working condition and hence filed a grievance to have the memo rejected.

The Company's Position

Despite the fact that this was a new assignment for the engineers, other employees had been required to paint equipment and do other minor maintenance tasks over the past years. The company had reserved the right to request such activities of the employees, even though each task was not specifically spelled out in the job description. The company had not issued the memo in disregard for safety. The nine$-$hour job could be accomplished any time during a three$-$week period. All engineers had approximately two hours of slack time each day. The company felt this time could easily be put to use painting and maintaining the equipment.

The Worker's Position

The engineers had never been requested to do any painting of equipment before. They argued that the company was not following prior practice by making such a request, and thus it should not be allowed. Also, no mention of painting was made in the applicable job descriptions. The company had no grounds for the request. An additional argument the engineers raised was the safety factor. The Ohio Revised Code states that an engineer must be in control of an operation boiler at all times. Painting would take the engineer away from control and would definitely create a potentially dangerous situation. For these reasons, the engineers requested that the painting order be eliminated.

MY BOILER PAINTETH OVER

$1.$ Did the request seem to fall within the job description. Why or why not?

$2.$ Did this request actually pose a danger? Defend your answer.

$3.$ Weigh the company's rights to change duties against prior practice restrictions.

$4.$ How would you find in this case? Explain.