OHSA: Insubordination
Instructions
- Read the following scenario in the context of the Wilson Bros. case study you read in Module 1.
- Answer all four questions below. If you have any questions about the assignment (e.g., what to do), post them to the Discussion Board.
- Your grade for this assignment will be calculated out of 30, then divided to be out of 15.
THE RANDY CAVANAUGH CASE SCENARIO
John is a supervisor on a loading dock in the Toronto plant operation of Wilson Bros. Je has just taken a course from you, the Director of Human Resources, on ‘How to Discipline Employees Effectively’. He is very keen to try out some of the techniques he learned in the course.
After returning to his job the following week, he thinks he encounters a perfect insubordination situation. It is the middle of winter, and the dock is very icy. He asks Randy Cavanaugh, one of the loaders, to move a set of skids from the edge of the dock. Randy refuses. Remembering some of what he had learned in his course, Randy says, “Randy, this is a direct order. You are to remove the skids from the edge of the dock. Failure to do so will result in disciplinary action up to and including discharge!”
Randy refuses again. John is totally exasperated. He calls you for advice.
You have a choice. You can support John in his quest to manage his employees with some firmness and control, or you can recommend some other course of action. Your credibilit will rest to a degree on your response.
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER:
1. Is suspending or terminating Randy for insubordination in this scenario the correct course of action? (Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
2. What factors, other than insubordination, need to be taken into consideration? (Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
3. What right is Randy exercising on the dock that day? Did he exercise that right properly?(Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
4. Imagine that you have to write a formal report about this incident for the management of Wilson Bros. Write the executive summary of this report. Your executive summary should explain the rights involved, provide a detailed description of the steps that should have been followed, and include a set of recommendations to ensure a case such as this doesn’t happen again at Wilson Bros. (Approx. 250-300 words – 15 marks) NOTE: Since this is the executive summary of a workplace report, you should not mention the course notes or textbook; however, you need to reference laws, statutes, or cases discussed in the course notes or textbook to support your arguments.
Format
- Create one document, and include all four answers. No title page necessary.
- Use headings to separate one question from the next.
- Write the title of the assignment and your name at the top of the document.
- Refer to laws, statutes, cases, module notes, and/or textbook examples to support your answers.
Late Submissions: Late submissions will lose 10% per day. If you require an extension for medical or other substantial reasons, you must contact the instructor in advance to make arrangements.
Grading Rubric
| Superior 5 points | Good 3 points | Weak 1 point | Fail 0 points | |
| 1 | Correctly and solidly explains the legality of John’s actions, with solid and convincing support from the textbook or module notes. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Has the basic idea of the legality of John’s actions, but leaves out some key points. May fail to support it convincingly with material from the textbook or module notes. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| 2 | Correctly identifies the important legal factors and laws/statutes in this case, with solid and convincing support from the textbook or module notes. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Partially identifies the important legal factors and laws/statutes in this case. May fail to convincingly support the answer with material from the textbook or module notes. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| 3 | Correctly identifies the rights Randy is exercising in this case, the foundation of these rights, and the proper use of those rights, with solid and convincing support from the textbook or module notes. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Partially identifies the rights Randy is exercising in this case, the foundation of these rights, and the proper use of those rights,. May fail to convincingly support the answer with material from the textbook or module notes. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| Superior 15 points | Good 9 points | Weak 3 points | Fail 0 points | |
| 4 | Correctly and solidly describes the rights and responsibilities in this case, the steps that should have been followed, and recommends future actions to avoid similar problems. Laws/statutes and cases are cited as support. Answer is an appropriate length. Well organized, clearly written, and has the style and professionalism of an executive summary of a report to management. | Partially describes the rights and responsibilities in this case, the steps that should have been followed, and recommends future actions to avoid similar problems, with some omissions. Some laws/statutes and cases are cited as support, but some important ones are not cited. Answer is at or near an appropriate length. May have some weaknesses in organization, clarity, spelling and grammar, and/or professionalism. | Very incompletely answers the question, omitting or simply touching on the rights and responsibilities in this case, the steps that should have been followed, and/or recommends future actions. Few or no laws/statutes and cases are cited as support, Answer is too brief. May have weaknesses in organization, clarity, spelling and grammar, and/or professionalism. | Did not do. |
