Reference no: EM133042980

Case Study 1:Rambo Goes Violent

The facts of the case are straightforward. A shop floor dispute at an automobile parts manufacturing plant in Hamilton, Iowa, ended with one worker killing another. At about 2:00 p.m., police responded to a report of a fight that erupted between two employees. When members of the Hamilton Police Department's Violent Crime Unit arrived, they found Mark Lomas seriously injured. Lomas, 30, died three hours later at Good Samaritan Memorial Hospital. The other employee, Thomas Waycross, was charged with second-degree murder.

During the investigation of the incident, employees noted that Lomas and Waycross often "bickered" when working together. One employee remarked that Waycross liked to "act tough." Another employee claimed that Waycross had a "Rambo-type" personality. It was widely known that management had told both employees to "learn to get along" or quit.

When asked about the incident, police spokesperson Kathy Calder remarked, "Employers must be vigilant when monitoring for signs of potential workplace violence." Nancy Lomas, Mark's wife, has filed a negligence lawsuit against the company.

Questions

1. What are some violence indicators an employee might display?
2. What are some actions management can take to help prevent workplace violence?
3. How can employees protect themselves against workplace violence?

Case Study 2:

Discharged for Off-Duty Behavior

The following case illustrates the off-duty privacy claim of an employee and management's right to uphold the reputation of the company.

Before his termination on Monday, May 6, 2014, John Hilliard worked as a senior sales representative for Advanced Educational Materials (AEM), a provider of high-quality educational books and supplies to junior and senior high schools. During his 12 years of employment, John was recognized as an outstanding employee with close working relationships with the schools he served. His sales record was excellent. John's discharge resulted from what AEM claimed was a serious breach of its code of conduct for employees.

On Saturday, May 4, 2014, due to a chance meeting between John and his manager, Jean Ellison, John was observed leaving an adult video store carrying what his manager described as pornographic magazines and an X-rated video. The following Monday, Jean discussed the incident with AEM's vice president for sales and a representative from HR. All agreed that John's off-duty behavior constituted a serious violation of the company's code of conduct for employees, which read, in part, "Employee off-duty behavior in no way should reflect unfavorably upon the company, its employees, or sales of any educational materials." AEM has traditionally held its sales representatives to high moral standards because the company sells extensively to public school administrators and teachers.

At his discharge meeting, John vigorously opposed his firing. While he acknowledged making the purchases, he argued strongly that what he did on his personal time was "no business of the company's" and his behavior in no way reflected unfavorably upon AEM or the sales of its products. Besides, he said, "The purchases were made as jokes for a stag party."

Questions

1. Given the facts of this case, should John have been discharged? Why or why not?
2. Should the sales representatives of AEM be held to a higher standard of personal conduct than sales representatives for other types of organizations? Explain.
3. Should management have considered John's past work record before deciding on discharge? Explain.