Plant Services - October 2007 - (Page 75)

Six days into the training, some equally minor point resulted in a heated interchange between Mary and Mona. The incident escalated into a shouting match that embarrassed the rest of the class. The trainer attempted to intervene by standing between the two women and mediating the incident. It didn’t help. Mary and Mona simply ignored her and continued their loud, disruptive behavior that devolved into a curse-filled, abusive back and forth volley of unrepeatable words. It was loud enough to attract the attention of the training manager sitting in his office down the hall. The tirade ended when Mona, now in tears, abruptly picked up her possessions and told the trainer, “I won’t work here. I quit.” Then, she walked out of the room and went home. That evening, the trainer met with her manager to discuss what happened, how things got so out of control, what caused it and what should be done. Their conclusion was that this should be reported to management, and the response from that quarter was swift and certain. Both Mary and Mona were immediately suspended pending an investigation. Two days later, Mary was terminated for using profane language and disrupting the training class. Mary sued Acme, alleging that the trainer overreacted because of inherent racial and gender bias. Mary also claimed that the trainer merely informally chastised a white male who also exhibited a disruptive outburst. And, that incident was never reported to management. How could this situation have been prevented? Is it even possible to change an ingrained corporate culture? Should new employees be subjected to pre-employment psychological evaluation? How should management handle employee conflicts? Wouldn’t it be wise for Acme to have a well-defined policy in place for this type of employee behavior? Could a pre-training session to discuss culture change with the employees been helpful? merely questioned the wisdom of a work rule, albeit in an aggressive fashion. He didn’t engage in a heated exchange with a coworker that involved profanity, nor does it appear that his antics disrupted the class to the same extent that Mary and Mona did. Acme was guilty of no discriminatory treatment here. Many employers opt to provide employees with diversity training so that employees become more sensitized to, and even learn to value, cultural differences among their coworkers. But here the conflict arose between two employees of the same gender and race. I can think of no training or policy that has a prophylactic effect on employee personality clashes. While some employers administer pre-employment personality tests, any test that screens out employees must be validated according to strict guidelines established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and these tests aren’t to be used lightly. Julie Badel, partner Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. (312) 499-1418 jbadel@ebglaw.com A corporate consultant says: I’m unconvinced this case could have been prevented. Prevention implies predictability, and there just weren’t any clues that would have indicated the potential for this con- Prevention implies predictability, and there just weren’t any clues that would have indicated the potential for this conflict. flict. Even if pre-employment testing had been applied to newly hired employees, this would have included only Mary, and since a conflict requires the participation of at least two individuals, the tool wouldn’t have prevented this case. The multi-hierarchical and multi-tenured composition of the classes wasn’t sufficiently causal to have been a reasonable predictor. And, though the nature of the disagreement between Mary and Mona wasn’t made clear, it’s irrelevant; there’s just no excuse for their behavior. Their complete lack of professionalism and self-discipline wasn’t mitigated by the facts of the case, and hijacked an entire class. Had there been an attendee of higher rank at the training event, that individual should most certainly have intervened and this may have been helpful, but those who behave this way wouldn’t be constrained by policies or diverted by pre-training briefings. 75 An attorney says: Management can’t always prevent personality conflicts between employees. The trainer might have tried asking the two feuding women to leave the room so as to not disrupt the entire class, and that might have provided a moment for them both to calm down and reflect on the inappropriateness of their behavior. Mary’s suit against Acme likely will be unsuccessful. The law looks at whether an employer treated an employee in the unprotected group more favorably than the employee in the protected group. Here, for example, Mary claimed that Acme treated Johnny, a white male, more leniently than it did her, a black female because his conduct wasn’t reported to management and he didn’t lose his job. But Mary and Johnny weren’t similarly situated because they didn’t engage in acts of comparable seriousness. Johnny October 2007 www.PLANTSERVICES.com http://www.PLANTSERVICES.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Plant Services - October 2007

Plant Services - October 2007 Contents Monetize It Letters Step into the Blogosphere What it Takes to be a Leader Up and Running Crisis Corner What Works From the Summit Treat Them Right Access Control Out of the Woods Show Me, Don't Guess Condition Assessment Made Easy The Air Above the Floor Power to the Prime Movers In the Trenches Illuminating Maintenance

Plant Services - October 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.