CASE 3

Summary of cases:

Case 1:

·         New York police inspector Is charged with sexually abusing female officer he supervised

·         Keith Walton, 44, was charged with sexual abuse, forcible touching, official misconduct and         harassment

·         Mr. Walton denies the charges made against him

·         He was relieved of his badge and gun, and placed on modified duty pending court judgement

Challenges:

·         The rights of workers to be safe from violence and sexual harassment at work

·         The departments duties to prevent, assess the risk and take adequate action against violence       at work – is modified duty enough?

·         The rights of the alleged victim

Case 2:

·         Several cases have unraveled where waiters write offensive or racists comments into a               company’s computer system, that then turns up on the customers receipt

·         Most cases end up on social media, resulting in public shaming of the companies

·         The level of training of staff is said to be one reason for the waiter’s not having necessary             communication skills and customer service attitude

·          Waitresses also sometimes receive rude comments on the receipts that customer’s leave            behind

Challenges:

·         Workers being subject to offensive and discriminatory language

·         Lack of training leading to worker’s not knowing how to handle customer contact

·         Possible law-suits against companies

·         Public shaming and loss of potential customers

Case 3:

·         Navy marine, Dennis Walters, says he has been subject to workplace bullying and harassment    due to wife’s political involvement

·         Wife has testified and been outspoken against town in a clean-water case, which lead to the         Navy saying husband needs to get “wife under control”

·         The husband has not been involved in campaign activity, but he has experienced a hostile work     environment

·         He has been forced into unreasonably long working hours and denied training opportunities

·         The family has requested for a transfer due to the demeaning conduct at work

Challenges:

·         Navy guilty of workplace bullying

·         Military wife = no right to career /private life?

·         Navy has taken no steps to stop the demeaning conduct and harassment

·         They have not taken early action or protected the right of the employee

Key Concepts, Theory and Model

All three cases represent situations of bullying, discrimination, or violence at work, in different degrees.

The clearest case is the first one, where a superior allegedly sexually assaulted an employee. This is a very serious case, and should be treated with the highest priority. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, American employees experienced 36,500 rapes and sexual assaults from 1993 to 1999 while working or on duty.  Between 2005 and 2009, rape/sexual assault accounted for 2.3% of all nonfatal violence in the workplace. One study of employed women found that 38% had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace (Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2013 p. 2).

The 1989 Council Directive (89/391) by the European Commission, states that employers are responsible for keeping employees safe at work, including from violence. (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2002, 24) The United States have similar legislation protecting the employee from violence at work. The New York Police Department failed in their duty to protect the victim of the assault. In addition, the person accused, has not been relieved of his duties or suspended from his position, but has been placed on modified duty pending judgement. This means, that if he is guilty, the police department is now putting all other employees at risk, for having to work alongside with a perpetrator of sexual violence.

An employee has statutory rights, that are protected by law. These are, for example, protection from discrimination, safe working conditions, and the right to form unions.  In the first case, the statutory rights of the employee that was sexually abused were not met. In addition to statutory rights, an employee has contractual rights, based on contract law, and other rights, such as the right to ethical treatment, privacy and free speech. The other rights can also be limited. (L. Gomez-Mejia, D. Balkin, R. Cardy, 2012, p.496)

In the second case, waitresses have been caught making rude and offensive notes on customers’ receipts. This is a case, where the other rights can, and should be limited. The company can demand the employee not to write derogatory comments on receipts that are made with the company till. In these cases, disciplining the employees could also be in order. A manager has the right to discipline an employee, if he or she acts against company rules or policies. Making rude comments on a customer certainly would fall under the rule of non-wanted customer service behavior. The company has the right to limit the freedom of speech of employers, and should discipline an employer that makes discriminatory comments or notes. (L. Gomez-Mejia, D. Balkin, R. Cardy, 2012, p.499) In this case, a verbal warning would most probably be sufficient. If the disrespectful behavior were to continue, an employer can take further actions, and proceed with handing a written warning, clearly stating the consequences if said behavior continues. If the employee still does not conform, a suspension is in order and as a last resort: discharge of the employee. (L. Gomez-Mejia, D. Balkin, R. Cardy, 2012, p.511)

When taking disciplinary procedures, it is important to set clear goals for each step, and to outline consequences if the standard is not met. Establishing a good two-way communication and a follow-up plan is also important (L. Gomez-Mejia, D. Balkin, R. Cardy, 2012, p.510).

It is not only the waitresses that are making rude notes on receipts, but also the clients that are being rude to their servers. Instinct Magazine recently published an article about a young waiter being called a sexually disrespectful name on the receipt, instead of getting a tip at the Buffalo Wings restaurant he works. As stated above, an employer has the duty to protect its’ employees from discrimination and to uphold safe working conditions. In a case like this, where the customer is vocally abusive towards an employee, it is the employer’s duty to protect said employer. But this is a difficult situation, and many employers cannot prevent cases such as this from taking place. Buffalo Wings did make a statement on the incident, stating: “We’re disappointed to learn about the comment left on a receipt by a Guest at one of our independently owned franchise locations in Louisville recently. Because Buffalo Wild Wings is about creating a great guest experience, we feel strongly that our restaurant environment needs to be respectful in order to provide the experience that our Guests and Team Members expect and deserve. “. The client eventually apologized for the rude behavior. (Instinct Magazine, 2017)

The third case tackled the issue of workplace bullying. The US navy has failed to protect one of its employees and taken part in bullying and discriminating behavior. According to the European Commission, bullying can involve verbal and physical attacks, as well as more subtle acts like devaluation of work. Dennis Walters is accusing the Navy of, among other things, denying him of training opportunities and, threatening him, and reducing him to administrative tasks.  All of these imply that the employer is bullying Mr. Walters. (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2002, 23)

The family’s freedom of speech was also inflicted upon due to Mr. Walters employment in the Navy. Dennis Walters was instructed not to allow his name to be used in the case, and he could not give interviews to the media. Despite following these regulations, the family feels that Mr. Walters has been mistreated and harassed at work. An employer has the right to limit freedom of speech of an employee, but that limitation does not include the employer’s family, therefore, Mr. Walters wife’s involvement in political campaigning for her rights, should not affect his employment status. The right to privacy should always be protected by the employer. (L. Gomez-Mejia, D. Balkin, R. Cardy, 2012, p.499)

The LexisNexis Legal Newsroom, recently posted a blog on the subject of freedom of speech, employment and social media. The blog brought up a couple of cases, involving employees using their right to free speech, posting work related personal comments on their personal social media pages and being let go due to negative disruption at the place of work. Courts ruled, that the employer has the right to let go a person that by using her freedom of speech is contradicting the interests of the employer. Therefore, the so-called rights of the employee to free speech, is rapidly declining as social media becomes the most used medias of expression. (Eric Meyer, 2015)

Literature:

Eric Meyer, 2015, LexisNexis Legal Newsroom, “The Limits of Employee Free Speech on Social Media” https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/labor-employment-top-blogs/archive/2015/09/09/the-limits-of-employee-free-speech-on-social-media.aspx (29.1.17)

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2002, 23, EU OSHA Factsheet 23, “Bullying at Work”, file:///C:/Users/johan/Downloads/EU%20OSHA%20Factsheet%2023%20Bullying%20at%20work.pdf (29.1.17)

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2002, 24, EU OSHA Factsheet 24, “Violence at Work” file:///C:/Users/johan/Downloads/EU%20OSHA%20Factsheet%2024%20Violence%20at%20work.pdf (29.1.17)

Instinct Magazine, 2017, “Waiter Says Customer Called Him A 'Faggot' Instead Of Leaving A Tip”, http://instinctmagazine.com/post/waiter-says-customer-called-him-faggot-instead-leaving-tip (29.2.17)

L.R Gomez-Mejia, D.B Balkin, R.L Cardy, 2012, “Managing Human Resources”, 7^th Edition, chapter 14 and 15. Pearson Education Inc. New Jersey

Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2013, “Sexual Violence & the Workplace” http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_overview_sexual-violence-workplace.pdf (29.1.17)