Case study 3

Anita first day at work

1. Identify and elaborate on three (3) ethical issues in this case

i. Safety and security in the workplace

Anita should think safety and act safety at the workplace. First, Anita did not fully
understand to the company, she is negligence about the company production that the
intermediate chemical products are washed with benzene and dried in the hot sun.
Benzene is a carcinogenic product, it is harmful to the human body. Besides, the
organization did not fully occupied with safety measure. It cause their employee
excessive eye irritation when they are doing with their task and it did not informed to
their employee about the workplace risks and hazards before they joined to the plant.
ii. Employees’ right
The employees of this organization have been treated unfairly, the employees of the
organization cannot be dismissed for no reason and the organization violates
employees’ right. Under the Occupational Safety & Health Act, 1994 (OSHA),
employers have a duty to protect their employees’ safety and health at work.
Employers to carry out a proper risk assessment and to implement appropriate
measures, including specifying when to stop work, so as to ensure that risks identified
are minimised. In the situation of workplace high risks and hazards, if the company
does not take immediate safety and security measures, the Department of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) may order the affected work to stop. If any
person fails to comply with a stop work order, under the OSHA he shall be liable on
conviction to a fine not exceeding RM 50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 5 years or to both, and to a further fine of RM 500.00 for each day during
which the insistual continue.
iii. Sexual harassment
Anita was the victim, because the supervisors purposely brush her shoulders when
Anita was passing by and winked at her. These actions considered unwelcome physical
conduct that made Anita felt uncomfortable and nervous in the working environment.
She worried about what could happen during her tenure in the company and what
action should her take to the supervisor since the actions had become her disturbance.

2. Comment on the working environment at the chemical plant.

From the case study, the working environment at the chemical plant have a poor management
and dangerous. It does not have a proper safety equipment provided by the organization. The
employees shall have a safe work practice such as proper training in washing the chemical
product to avoid from the chemical substances that can harm the health. The foreign workers
need to use the personal protective equipment likes wearing the special goggles to protect
their eyes from the chemical substances during their work.

Other than that, one of the foreign workers had faced the unfair treatment from the
supervisor. One of the foreign workers, named Sivan was refused to continue his task because
of eyes irritation and he felt cheated by the management since they did not inform him about
the working environment. The supervisor also threated him to continue the work so that he
will not be dismissed. Sivan shall sound out and defend his right. The management shall inform
Sivan about the work risk and consequences before he starts the work. If the supervisor wants
to dismiss Sivan, he must have the valid reason and follow the procedures to dismiss an
employee. Sivan has the right to sue the supervisor if he dismisses Sivan without a valid reason.

Besides, it also a hostile environment in the organization. The working environment is uneasy
and disturbing, there is a sexual annoyance for a sexual conduct that is offensive or
intimidating to the recipient. It should follow outline on handling and eradicate sexual
harassment.

3. Is it ethical for Sivan to refuse to do his assigned task and disobey Mr Aziz’s instruction?

Yes, it ethical for Sivan to refuse to do his assigned task and disobey Mr Aziz’s instruction.
Sivan is not an act of insubordination, it exercising his employee rights. And Mr Aziz need to
provide proper equipment and tools and devices. It involves safety to the employees. The
company does not abide by the occupational safety and health act 1994. Besides the company
need to secure the safety, health and welfare of a person at work against risks to safety or
health arising out of the activities of the persons at work. It also need to protect persons at a
place of work other than persons at work against risks to safety or health arising out of the
activities of the persons at work.

4. Apply Kant’s Theory of Ethics and Theory of Rights in your analysis.

Kant Theory of Ethics

Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the

rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether
they fulfil our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he
referred to it as The Categorical Imperative.

Theory of Right

Rights are legal, moral, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights
are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people,
according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. It also a specific and
general right, natural or human rights.

5. Assess whether Anita was sexually harassed on her first day at work.

Yes, she was sexually harassed. Sexual harassment consists of a wide range of behaviors and
actions, the most common of these are verbal forms of harassment and suggestive remarks.
One of the supervisor tried to brush Anita’s shoulder and winked at her when she passed by
the place. Anita felt uncomfortable in the situation. The body gesture and eye contact that
the supervisor did toward Anita is considered sexual harassment. The supervisor shall have
the etiquette when meeting and communicate with the employees especially to the female.
Every employee has the right to be respected by the superior no matter what position she is
in the organization. Besides, Anita must offend herself by stopping and telling the supervisor
to stop his action before she takes action toward him. Sexual harassment can be terminated
from the company and blacklisted by the industry.
Case study 5

Old smoke

1. Would Charles Renford be within his rights to discipline Darlene Lambert for
insubordination? Should he order Frank and Alice to stop smoking in their office altogether,
or is Darlene oversensitive? How would you handle this situation if you were Charles? Is it
possible for employers to find some compromise between smokers and non-smokers?

No, Renford can’t fire Darlene just because of her insubordination because what she’s
demanding is her right. Yes, he can order Frank and Alice to stop smoking in the files room.

If I were Renford, I would make a policy that the main files room be a non-smoking place for
safety purposes since smoking inside the room might cause fire and would lead to loss of
important documents- an even larger problem. This would also benefit Darlene since it is
every worker’s right for a workplace with a good working condition.

It is because smoking in office or near the workplace can create health risks, both for smokers
themselves and for nearby workers who breathe in second-hand smoke. I would developing
and implementing a non-smoking policy. This policy should outline the areas in the workplace
where smoking is never allowed.

Nominate a designated smoking area in an outside part of your workplace, ensure that there
are clear rules informing workers not to use other areas if for some reason they can’t smoke
in the designated area, ensure that smokers understand that they are not to use an
unauthorised area within or near the workplace.

Yes, it is possible for employers to find some compromise between smokers and non-smokers.

2. Do Frank and Alice have a right to smoke in their office if no one is there? Should
companies make an effort to accommodate the needs of smokers? What policy on smoking
would you recommend to Redwood Associates? If, as in this case, state law doesn’t mandate
it, are employers morally required to ban smoking altogether inside their facilities? What
about smoking outside but on company grounds?

Frank and Alice have no right to smoke in their office if no one is there, they should think of
others. Although there was no one in the office, but after they smoke, the smell of cigarettes
will still permeated all the room.

No, the companies should not make an effort to accommodate the needs of smokers, it is
because there is mounting evidence that documents the dangers of exposure to second-hand
smoke, including in the workplace. In states that permit workplace smoking, employers face
significant legal risks from employees who are exposed to second-hand smoke on the job.
Employers have been held liable for employee exposure to second-hand smoke in numerous
cases, including those based on workers’ compensation, state and federal disability law, and
the duty to provide a safe workplace. Given this liability risk, employers should voluntarily
adopt smoke-free workplace policies. Such policies do more than fulfil an employer’s legal
obligation to provide a safe workplace; they also reduce the risk of litigation, potentially
reduce workers’ compensation premiums, and protect employees from harm.

I recommend to stop smoking. It is because smoking will cause an unhealthy life such as lung
cancer, heart disease, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), stroke and so on.
Cigarette smoking causes most cases of lung cancer.
It is not allow to smoke in the office. Company should regulate where smoking is and where
smoking is not permitted. This Policy aims to consider and accommodate the needs of smokers
and non-smokers and to provide all employees with a safe and healthy working environment.
It is not meant to punish smokers, but to protect and improve the health of all staff members.
Smoking outside but on the company grounds is permitted.

3. Most people these days believe that employees have a right to smoke-free work area but
do they also have a right to a workplace free of the odor of old smoke – or of any other
odors they dislike? If so, does this right justify Darlene’s refusal to do the report? Does it
make a difference how important the report is or how much her refusal inconveniences her
employers?

4. In 1914, Thomas Edison had a policy of employing “no person who smoked cigarettes”. Is
such a policy discriminatory? Is it reasonable? Today some companies ban employees even
from smoking in their cars in the company parking lot. Is this fair or reasonable?

No, it is not a policy discriminatory. We found ethically relevant variations in terms of how
tobacco is defined, which employee populations are protected, and to what extent they are
protected. Furthermore, the underlying ethical rationales for smoker protection differ, and
can be grouped into two main categories: prevention of discrimination and protection of
privacy.

Yes, it is reasonable, it is because smoke doesn’t benefit at all, it also have problem to your
health. Smoking can create health risks, both for smokers themselves and for nearby workers
who breathe in second-hand smoke will cause lung cancer.

Yes it is fair and reasonable that some company ban employees smoke in the car in the
company parking lot. It is because the car be a non-smoking place for safety purposes since
smoking inside the car might cause fire and would lead to the parking lot of company on fire
- and even larger problem.