Every employee expects to work in a place where their physical safety and health conditions are put into considerations. It is the duty of the management to provide a safe and healthy workplace and at the same time put into considerations factors such as the employees’ physical health before assigning them to specific tasks. As seen in the case of Joe, he is assigned the duty of carrying heavy boxes to an upstairs storage room with no climate control and has a low ceiling despite his health condition of suffering from arthritis. In addition, he is supposed to carry over three hundred cases of oil filters every day up the stairs to the storage room which is exposed to high temperatures of above 100F.
These conditions have already worsened his health issues as he suffers from joint and hip pains and as a result of presenting his complaint to the supervisor, he is at risk of being fired despite her knowledge on the health condition of the employee. The theoretical aspects of this case calls for interventions of the existing legal and ethical requirements that protects the employees’ health and wellbeing at workplace. This scenario requires both ethical practices for businesses and also legal considerations by the human resource personnel before making any decision.
According to the scenario, there are several considerations that the human resource representative should consider before making a decision to fire Joe is the legal requirements of employees welfare as outlined by organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) and Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to WHO, a health workplace refers to a place where every person works collectively to achieve the organization goals and promote health and wellbeing of employees and the environment. According to the description of the workplace where Joe works, there are several factors that do not meet the WHO definition.
For instance, the low ceilings will force the employees to bend while carrying the oil cases hence deteriorating their health status as they are likely to suffer from back and joint problems. This is also the case of high temperatures in the storage room which exposes the employees to a threat of suffering from heat exhaustion considering the large number of cases they have to carry into the room. This working environment violates the OSH Act (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) section 13 (a) which protects the employees from imminent working conditions exposing the employees to any possible physical danger or death. Therefore before considering firing Joe, the HR should consider placing him in a different role and also improving the physical conditions that ensure safety of all the employees are maintained for instance by improving the ventilation in the storage area and reducing the total cases that an employee has to carry upstairs. There is a possibility that Joe could sue the company for the unfavorable workplace conditions which have already deteriorated his health.
It is also an ethical requirement for the organization to consider employee’s physical health and match it with a reasonable job. In this scenario, the management knew that Joe had arthritis and this could be worsened with carrying heavy loads especially to the storage room up the stairs. The HR should consider factors of motivation such as Maslow’s theory on safety needs (Sparks, 2001). Joe’s reaction to refusing to carry the cases is a result that he fears for his safety and health condition. Therefore instead of firing him, it is ethically right that the HR and supervisor should instead give him an alternative job that matches with his health situation. This is a way of helping the employees achieve their needs up the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
References
Kaplan, S, & Tetrick, L.E. (2010) Workplace Safety and Accidents: An Industrial and Organizational Psychology Perspective. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Sparks, K. et al. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 74, (489–509).
