Labor Union and Employee

¶ … workplace injuries can be complex, involving multiple variables and a minimal amount of concrete evidence to support the claims of either worker or company. This case is one such case where the testimony of the workers contradicts the testimony of the company.

Resolving this case will be difficult, but ultimately, evidence can be gathered to show that (a) the company was aware of a faulty safety guard and covered up their knowledge; (b) the company was unaware of the faulty safety guard but the manufacturer of the machine was; (c) the manufacturer was unaware of the faulty safety guard and this is the first incident in which a worker was injured using the equipment. Explanation of the Issue or Problem There are several interrelated issues and problems in this case.

First, it is not clear whether the injured party, John Schmidt, and his coworkers are members of a labor union or not. This might have a bearing on the case. Second, there is a lot of heresy in this case and an unfortunate lack of evidence. Schmidt only has his colleagues to back up his claim that the safety guard is "poorly designed" and that this issue was in fact raised with the shop foreman.

There is no indication of whether or not the shop foreman Harry Hiller admits that the workers had mentioned the faulty design problem to him or not. Either way, the argument is between what the workers say and what Hiller remembers. Third, Hiller can provide the maintenance records but those records are irrelevant if the safety mechanism was poorly designed to begin with. Analysis of the Information This case can be analyzed from a number of different perspectives.

One is based on workplace safety standards set by government organizations, like the United States Department of Labor (n.d.), which clearly states, "safeguards are essential for protecting workers from these preventable injuries. Any machine part, function, or process that may cause injury must be safeguarded." In this case, the machine was safeguarded, but the safeguarding was inefficient -- or so the workers claim. Simply "laughing" and "joking around" should not be a sufficient enough distraction from a piece of dangerous equipment.

There is no indication of the use of protective gear, although in a situation like this, protective gear might not have helped Schmidt avoid injury. Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions, or Solutions One alternative viewpoint is that the employee is fully culpable, and that his coworker is lying to protect him. This is certainly possible, but there is no way to prove this is the case.

If this were the case and evidence were provided to prove it, then the employee would simply be responsible for his or her own medical bills related to the injury. The company could then decide whether or not to retain the employee and provide him with additional safety training or fire the employee for negligent behavior.

Another alternative viewpoint is that the foreman is fully culpable because it is not only his responsibility to run the machine diagnostics and maintenance checks by the books, but also to test and use the machinery himself to make sure that the equipment is safe. If it turns out the foreman had in fact heard and ignored complaints from coworkers, then he could of course be sued as an individual and therefore save the company its loss of reputation.

Personal or Summarized Conclusions and Proposed Decisions This issue may go beyond a simple workplace negligence case, as it is certainly possible that the workers are correct that the safety mechanism is in fact poorly designed. The poor design of a safety mechanism releases the company from liability, deflecting it back to the manufacturer of the machine.

Because "manufacturers of custom machinery are subject to liability under theories of negligence, warranty, and strict liability," it is recommended that this case be considered one in which the machinery manufacturer is scrutinized (Business Management Advisory, 1997). The company needs to cease blaming the worker and instead call for legal advice to see if an investigation can be made into the manufacturer of the machinery. At that point, the worker and the company may remain in limbo for a long time.

The worker is in the precarious position of having to pay for medical bills that have no official workplace-related cause. No workplace injury claim can be made until a report comes back from the manufacturer investigation. The company then decides what they can do, or what they can.