Case Study 3-6
2/19/2012

After the company found out what Jones had been doing it is their responsibility to confront the employee. OHSA should then be called to come and inspect the break room as well as the coffee pot. After, their investigation they need to then let all employees know if they have come into contact with the coffee so if they had drank it they would know. In the case of O’Connor vs Ortega this would be the same outcome because the health and safety of the employees would overrule Jones saying his privacy was invaded. Employees could become ill because of the unsanitary break room. So I think that the courts would rule in favor of Mustapha and Pope setting up the recording device in the break room. I do not think they should be disciplined but I do think that they should be brought in and told that the next time they feel something is going on that is wrong that they should contact OSHA. That way if there is any wrong doing there would not be any loose ends and the could do an inspections and make everything official. Educating everyone on what OSHA is there for and the consequences that employees or employers suffer if they do break the OSHA act of 1970. Also to let employees and employers know the severity of their actions whether it be a practical joke or an act of revenge.\ After seeing Jones filing and seeing that even though he may not have a lot of bad marks knowing that he was turned down for a position would be just cause to show why the employee acted the way he did. That does not excuse his actions because it was not all of the employees that caused him not to get the new position. He should have confronted the Human Resource department and make sure that the person they hired instead of him was a legitament candidate