Reference no: EM133362374

Case: You are the Facility Manger for a firm engaged in delivering oil to various entities. Among your employees are individuals who drive the oil tanker trucks to make the deliveries. Your transportation manager has just reported to you that he received a notice in today's mail from the Illinois State Police that three days ago, February 23, one of your drivers was given a citation for smoking while driving the tanker truck in violation of the Illinois motor code governing the hauling of dangerous and flammable cargo. You have examined the citation and note that at the bottom it reads "DRIVER: Give this report to the Motor Carrier." Despite that fact, this is the first time that you, your Transportation Manger, or anyone at the firm has heard of the incident.

You then contact the State Trooper, a hazardous material inspector, who issued the citation. He informs you that on February 23 he was stationed in his squad car on the side of the road near a toll booth about 25-50 feet from the tollbooth. He tells you that he then observed the driver in question, Jane Marlboro, pull out of a toll booth on the toll way and that he saw a cigarette in her mouth, a glowing ember, and cigarette smoke emanating from her mouth. He then pulled Marlboro over and when he exited his vehicle she exited the truck meeting him next to the truck. As they met he smelled the odor of cigarette smoke on Marlboro and told her that he was going to issue her a citation for
smoking while hauling flammable material. He further informs you that Marlboro then said "Please don't. I could lose my job over this." However, he was unmoved and issued the citation and that, because of the risk, he chose the most stringent level of citation, "notice of apparent violation," which carries with it the possibility of the firm losing its license to haul the material. Finally, the trooper informs you that although he is required to perform a certain number of inspections each shift, he is under no obligation to issue a certain number of citations.

You then call Marlboro into your office. After you ask her about the citation, she denies smoking, and instead says that what the trooper saw was a straw that she was sucking on after she had a soft drink with her lunch earlier that same day. She further informs you that she is in fact a smoker and that she smoked earlier that day at a diner, but that she knows better than to smoke while driving the tanker truck. She also tells you that she knows that it is common for state troopers to station themselves at toll booths so that they can get a good view of vehicles moving slower that they would if they were elsewhere along the toll way.

You then look to the firm's Rules of Conduct and note that there are two that appear to be applicable. The first, in the section of the Rules dealing with "Safety," reads, in relevant part, "No person may smoke...a cigarette...while handling combustible product...This Rule applies to empty tank vehicles that were used for flammable liquids or gases... Violation of this rule will lead to disciplinary action, up to and including,
discharge." The second, in the section of the Rules dealing with "General Conduct," reads as follows, "Dishonesty shall be grounds for discharge." You then ask Marlboro if she was aware of the Rules and she replies that she seems to recall that they were posted
in the Driver's Lounge, but that they were posted a long time ago and, as a driver, she isoften not in the Lounge. You then ask Marlboro why she did not inform you or the Transportation Manager of the citation and she replies that she thought that it was between her and the State Police and that she was contesting the citation anyway.

However, she adds that she failed to bring the paperwork with her relating to the appeal. You then end the meeting by informing Marlboro that you are going to deliberate what to do in light of the situation. After she leaves your office you then examine her personnel file and discover that she has been employed by the firm for seven years and that in the past she has received a written warning for running the engine of his truck during a gasoline delivery and a one day suspension for failing to report that her license had been temporarily suspended at one time.

INSTRUCTIONS:
Please review these facts and decide whether Marlboro received due process, whether Marlboro is guilty of violating the Rules in question, and if so, what should be the penalty meted out to her.

In doing so PLEASE BE SURE to set forth the arguments that you would expect that the Employer could make on each of those points and the counter argument that Marlboro could make.