THE CASE OF THE WARM MILK
BACKGROUND
Pure Dairy Company, Incorporated, is a milk production plant. It
purchases raw milk from farmers and processes the milk for sale to retail grocery stores
and consumers. The plant employs 35 people, including production workers, truck drivers,
clerical staff, sales staff and management. The production workers report to work at 7:00
a.m. and quit at 3:00 p.m.
Joe Leizert is a production worker who was hired exactly two years ago.
Leizert is 47 years old and previously worked in a coal mine that closed causing Leizert
to lose his job there. When he first started to work at Pure Dairy Company, Leizert was
classified as a “loader”. In that job, he was assigned to remove
cases of milk bottles from the end of a conveyer line and stack them into a large
refrigerator where the milk was stored until it was later delivered to stores and other
customers. He also helped clean and load trucks for delivery of the milk.
Leizert worked as a loader for about nine months. At that time, 15
months ago, after another Employee retired, Leizert was Promoted to the position
“pasteurizer”. The wage rate for pasteurizer is higher than the loader job. The
primary duties of the pasteurizer job are to clean and sanitize pasteurizing equipment;
run raw milk from a large storage vat into the pasteurizing equipment; monitor the
temperature and pressure of the equipment as the milk is pasteurized; and then run the
milk out of the pasteurizer and into the bottling equipment. The job requires careful
attention at times and involves opening and closing the proper valves to assure
that the milk flows properly in the processing equipment. In addition, the pasteurizer has
secondary duties which include mixing ingredients for chocolate milk, separating the cream
from milk to leave skimmed milk, and running the chocolate milk, cream, and
skimmed milk into bottling equipment. He was also responsible for keeping the area where
he works clean.
For the first three months on the new job, the plant manager, John
Moro, found that Leizert performed all duties properly. Moro came to the pasteurizing area
at least four or five times per day to give Leizert instructions and explain how he should
perform his job. Moro then went on vacation for two weeks. When he returned from vacation,
the Assistant Plant Manager, Maria Galinsky, reported to Moro that while he was gone,
Leizert had made two serious errors. First, he mistakenly bottled skimmed milk in bottles
marked for whole milk. His second error was that he failed to properly clean the chocolate
mix out of the bottling equipment after a chocolate milk run. The result was that the next
batch of whole milk all looked slightly brown. In both cases, all the milk had to
be discarded and could not be sold. This represented a significant loss to the
Company.
Moro called Leizert into his office and asked him how these mistakes
had happened. Leizert explained that he had been in a hurry to get the skimmed milk
bottled and “forgot” to change the type of bottle before he ran the skimmed milk into
the bottler. With regard to the chocolate milk, as he was about to clean the equipment, he
was called by Galinsky and told to help load a truck. When he returned to his regular job,
he simply “forgot” that he had not cleaned the equipment and started to process the
next batch of whole milk. Moro warned Leizert that he would have to pay closer attention
to his work. All of this happened about a year ago.
Three months passed with no problem. Then about nine months ago, Moro
discovered a shortage of about 700 liters of milk. He reviewed the records again
and determined that the shortage had occurred two days earlier and he decided to
investigate. Moro asked several employees about the shortage and finally, when he asked
Joe Leizert if he knew anything, Leizert admitted that he had failed to close one of the
valves on the pasteurizer as raw milk was coming in. This allowed part of the load of milk
to be spilled out onto the floor. It went down a drain and was lost.
His explanation was that he was interrupted as he was performing his
normal duties. Another employee asked him to help unload some new milk cases from a truck.
When he returned to his normal duties, he simply “forgot” to close the valve before
running the raw milk. Moro decided to give Leizert a stern warning and to suspend
him for one day without pay as a penalty for his carelessness.
For about seven months, there were no incidents. Then about two months
ago, Leizert was in trouble again. The plant has a large heated garage where its delivery
trucks are stored and washed. Employees are allowed to bring their personal cars into the
garage to wash them, but they are permitted to do this after their regular working shift
is completed at 3:00 p.m. One afternoon about two months ago, at 2:45 p.m., Moro walked
through the plant and noticed that Leizert was not at his work station. In addition, the
floor area was quite dirty. As Moro came into the garage, he found Leizert washing his
(Leizert’s) car.
Leizert explained that he had properly cleaned all his equipment, and
that he decided to wait until the next morning to clean the floor. Besides, no one had
ever told him the floor needed to be cleaned every day. Leizert said that his wife had a
doctor’s appointment at 3:30 p.m. that day, so that he could not wait until after normal
working hours to wash his car. If he had, his wife would be late to the doctor.
Moro was very angry with Leizert and seriously considered
terminating Leizert at that time. Moro informed the union shop steward, Michael Eller,
that he intended to fire Leizert. Eller told Moro that the union would file a grievance
to protest the termination because Eller believed the rules about cleaning the floor in
the afternoon were not clear, that Leizert had not been told exactly what was expected of
him, and most important, that other employees had occasionally washed their cars before
3:00 p.m.
Mr. Eller also told Moro that the Union was displeased at the way
the Company was treating Mr. Leizert. Management seemed to be picking
on Leizert, maybe because he was an older employee. In addition, the Company had not given
Leizert proper instruction in the operations or told him what was expected. The Company
seemed to be making up the rules as they went along.
After this discussion, Moro decided that he would impose another
suspension on Leizert – 5 days off without pay – and give him one more chance. After
the suspension, Eller told Moro that the union did not think the suspension was fair
either and that Leizert also thought Moro was “picking on him” – treating him in a
discriminatory way – since other employees had also washed their cars before 3:00 p.m.
Eller gave notice to Moro that the union would not stand by and let him treat Leizert
unfairly.
LAST INCIDENT
Last Wednesday, Mr. Moro was reviewing the “cold milk chart”
for the pasturing machine operated by Mr. Leizert. This chart is required by the
government to record the temperature of the milk in the pasteurizer while it is being
heated for pasteurization, and afterward as it is cooled for storage. The temperature is
recorded automatically. After the milk is heated to 55 degrees Centigrade and held at that
temperature for one minute. Then it must be cooled immediately to 2 degrees Centigrade and
kept at that temperature until it is bottled.
Moro noticed that on Tuesday, the pasteurizing temperature had been
attained and the milk was then cooled to 2 degrees, but almost immediately, the
temperature rose to nearly 15 degrees where it stayed for nearly two hours before it was
cooled to 2 degrees again. As noted earlier, an important part of Mr. Leizert’s job
is to monitor the equipment, yet Leizert had reported nothing wrong during this period.
On Thursday, Moro called Leizert into his office along with
Mr. Eller. He asked Leizert to explain what had happened. Leizert said that he had
been having a problem with the circuit breaker for the cooler compressor circuit. The
breaker frequently popped out for no apparent reason. This, in turn, shut off the
electricity for the compressor. Leizert had reported the problem to the plant electrician,
but the electrician had done nothing about the problem. Leizert did not tell anyone else
because he did not want to get the electrician into trouble.
On Wednesday, the day of the incident, Leizert had been called into the
garage by one of his co-workers to help wash out some trucks. There used to be two
employees in the garage to work on the trucks, but the Company had terminated one of these
workers three weeks ago in order to save money. Leizert said he had come back to his work
station several times during the afternoon, but had not noticed that anything was wrong.
After listening to Leizert’s explanation, Moro decided that Leizert
should be terminated. He based his decision on the fact that the Pasteurizer duties are
Leizert’s primary responsibility. Even if he was called away for a time to help, he
should have checked back more regularly and caught the problem of the refrigeration
failure.
Moreover, Leizert had consistently been inattentive to his work and a
dairy is particularly vulnerable because it produces a product that people, including
especially children, consume. Finally the mistakes caused by Leizert had already cost the
Company a great deal of money.
Mr. Eller, for the union, did not accept this decision. He decided
that the matter would be appealed on the following grounds: First, Leizert had not been
properly trained. There had never been any formal training, nor was there a written list
of procedures or rules for the job. Second, Leizert should not be blamed for the
Company’s faulty equipment. He had reported the circuit breaker problem to the proper
person, but it had not been repaired. Third, Leizert was actually trying to help the
Company by working in the garage washing trucks which was not his normal job duty.
Finally, the Company was treating Leizert in a discriminatory fashion by picking on him.
The Union and the Company have an agreement that whenever there is a
dispute that cannot be resolved, they will submit that dispute to an impartial arbitrator.
The arbitrator must hear all the evidence and argument, then he or she must decide the
matter. Whatever the arbitrator decides will be final and binding on the parties.
PASTEURIZER JOB DESCRIPTION
Work Shift: 7 a.m. – 3 p.m. Hourly Rate: $9.88
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Work station: Pasteurizing Room. Main Building.
2. Read and be completely familiar with the state regulations concerning milk sanitation:
TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE PART III: Bureau of Foods and Chemistry; Chapter 59. Milk Sanitation
and Standards (August 7, 1982). They are posted in the work station.
3. Every morning, clean and sanitize the pasteurizing tank and all storage/mixing tanks
before any product is run in from the holding tanks.
4. Assist the Bottler Operator to clean and sanitize the bottling machine.
5. Run raw milk from holding tanks to the pasteurizer; operate the pasteurizer
according to instructions provided by management and in accordance with the state
regulations; monitor the temperature and pressure of the equipment as the milk is being
pasteurized; and then run the milk out of the pasteurizing tank into the storage/mixing
tanks or into the bottling equipment.
6. Check to see that the Bottler Operator has placed the proper containers in the bottling
machine before each bottling run.
7. Mix chocolate milk ingredients for chocolate milk runs.
8. Run product into containers in the bottling equipment.
9. Keep work station, including floors, clean and sanitary.
10. Other duties as assigned.
Job Requirements
Applicant must be able to read and follow written instructions.
Applicant must have a working knowledge of all equipment in the pasteurizing room.
VOCABULARY:
he was assigned ему было поручено
stack складывать
vat бак
valves клапаны
skimmed milk обезжиренное молоко
batch of whole milk партия цельного молока
discarded выброшены
stern строгое
shortage недостача
drain дренажная труба
suspend временно отстранить
seriously considered terminating решил выгнать
would file a grievance подаст желаемое
to be picking придирается
binding обязательный
SUGGESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION THE ARBITRATOR’S HEARING IN THE CASE
During the class four volunteers will be needed to play the roles of
Leizert and Eller on the Union side, and Moro and Galinsky on the Company side. The rest
of the class will be the arbitrators.
1. First, Moro and Galinsky will present their reasons for
terminating Leizert. This must be based on the facts given in the scenario above. After
they present their story, Mr. Eller will be allowed to question them, if he wants.
2. Then, Eller and Leizert will be able to argue why Leizert should not be fired.
Moro or Galinsky (not both) will be able to question them, if they wish.
3. Finally, after all the arguments are made, each individual in the class will be
asked to decide the case. The arbitrators will be asked to write down the three most
important facts or arguments for your decision and hand them in.
Compiled by Vladimir Pavlov,
The Moscow Institute of Business Administration
|