THE BLAZING FURNACE

Background

Michael Argent was employed as a part$-$time employee with Chase Company on April $14,1986$ and was discharged on August $10,1987,$ as a result of an alleged safety violation on August $8,1987.$ Under the terms of the policy manual, the company was permitted to employ part$-$time employees in order to maintain a full seven day production. Argent was given three$-$and$-$a$-$half weeks of training on the job. Argent was employed to work on Saturdays and Sundays. During the training the company provided Argent a copy of the company's safety manual and Argent was asked to make himself familiar with all safety aspects of the job. After completing training, Argent was assigned to the casting department where his job consisted of working on one of the company's solid furnaces. Argent was supposed to remove the scum from the surface of the melted metal with a tool provided and use a chipping tool to pour the scrap into the furnace. Sometime during the course of his shift on August $8,$ an acting foreman saw Argent standing on the rim of the furnace on one foot with the his other foot in the furnace pushing down on the metal. The acting foreman reported the incident to the general foreman who decided to discharge Argent due to the serious safety conduct of Argent. After the discharge, the general foreman learned of two other incidents involving unsafe work practices committed by Argent; however, no written reprimands had ever been issued to Argent for these infractions of safety policy.

The Company's Position

The Company stated that the contract gave management the right to terminate a part$-$time employee at anytime for just cause. They felt that the seriousness of the August $8$ incident and the previous conduct of Argent could not go unnoticed. Further, the potential human suffering had Argent fell in the furnace was enough to warrant termination. The company's investigation provided evidence of previous incidents showing a pattern of Argent's lack of safety common sense. The company provided statements from Argent's co$-$workers that they would prefer not to work with Argent because of his disregard for worker safety. The company testified that placing Argent on jobs with fewer hazards would only create the need for yet another part$-$time employee, which they felt contrary to the company's intent.

Argent's Position

The action taken by the company was unjust and that Argent felt he should be reinstated with back pay. The safety violation he had done was no different than the violations of other employees who refused to wear their safety glasses. The final argument was that his treatment was inconsistent with the company's safety procedures, which was to warn employees of the penalties for not wearing$/$using required safety equipment.

THE BLAZING FURNACE

$1.$ How much safety training do you think an organization should provide new employees?

$2.$ The role of past violations should play what role in this case?

$3.$ Is Argent's case convincing? Why or why not?

$4.$ Who won and why?